Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Public Transport, Scotland (Strikes)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will initiate an inquiry into the continuing public transport strikes in Fife and other parts of Scotland, in view of the consequent hardship caused to other people.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the current unofficial strikes affecting public transport in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): Following rejection of an agreement reached on the National Council for the Omnibus Industry by a Scottish delegate conference of the T.G.W.U. talks took place between representatives of the Scottish Bus Group and the union. As a result certain proposals were put to a Scottish delegate conference of the union on 25th March which accepted them. It is hoped there will be an early resumption of work.
There have been weekly, one-day strikes of railway guards in the West of Scotland since 2nd March over mileage payments, the promotion of guards and the abolition of the conductor/guard grade. These issues are being discussed at national level within the pay and efficiency negotiations.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole of Scotland will be very gratified at the reported agreement? Does he agree that, if the reports are

true, £17 10s. a week for a 40-hour week is not exactly extravagant from the workers' point of view?

Mr. Walker: I should not like to comment off hand on the earnings aspect, but I share my hon. Friend's hope that there will be a very speedy response to the decision which has been taken.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many bus drivers in Scotland have apparently obtained other jobs during this long and damaging strike? Has he any assessment of how many might be involved and when services might return to normal?

Mr. Walker: I am unable to comment on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the second part, I understand that the union is making every possible effort to contact its members at local level today with a view to getting a speedy response and a resumption of work.

Hotel and Catering Industry (Collective Bargaining)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what consultations she had with the relevant employers' organisations or with the trade unions concerned before referring to the Commission on Industrial Relations the question of collective bargaining in the hotel and catering industry.

Mr. Harold Walker: My right hon. Friend consulted the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. At the request of the C.B.I. she also consulted the British Hotels and Restaurants Association.

Mr. Blaker: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as enough to consult the C.B.I.? Is he aware that one of the main trade associations was consulted only the day before the reference was made, and then at its own initiative, and that the other was not consulted at all?

Mr. Walker: I accept that it was rather late when the British Hotels and Restaurants Association was consulted. But I ask the House to understand that there was difficulty about hammering out a procedure for dealing with proposed references. One has now been agreed with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. We consulted the British Hotels and Restaurants Association as a consequence of the procedure.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will take the necessary steps to enable refunds of selective employment tax to be made to processors of textile, rubber and plastic waste.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): Professor Reddaway deals with this matter in his report on the effects of the selective employment tax on the distributive trades. The report is at present under consideration.

Mr. Blaker: As these processors are to be entitled to investment grants in certain circumstances, and as processors of waste paper and scrap metal are already entitled to a refund of selective employment tax in certain circumstances, should not these processors be put on an equal basis with them?

Mr. Dell: We shall bear all these arguments in mind when considering Professor Reddaway's report.

North-East Lancashire (Employment)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest employment figures for North-East Lancashire; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: The estimated number of employees in employment in North-East Lancashire at June, 1968, was 197,000. A corresponding estimate for June, 1969, should become available during the next month or two, probably in May.
The designation of North-East Lancashire as an intermediate area should do much to alleviate the economic problems of the area.

Mr. Davidson: As new industry is now coming to North-East Lancashire at an unprecedented rate, would my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is giving top priority to ensuring that we do not suffer from the fact that there is at present a shortage of skilled labour and that he is doing all in his power to ensure that skilled labour remains in the area and that more goes to it?

Mr. Dell: Training grants have been made available in intermediate areas to

assist precisely the problem which my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Lane: Would the hon. Gentleman remind the House how many decades it is since the total national unemployment figure remained at over the 500,000 mark for a virtually continuous period of two-and-a-half years?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is about North-East Lancashire.

Mr. Dell: As you point out, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is hardly relevant. But he should remember that wage-related unemployment benefits and redundancy payments were only recently introduced.

Government Training Centres

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the development of sponsored training in Government training centres.

Mr. Dell: Courses for sponsored employees have been generally available to employers free of charge since February, 1969. By February, 1970, 569 employers had used the scheme, 932 trainees had completed courses, and there were 358 under training. This is an encouraging response, but I look forward to continued expansion.

Mr. Wainwright: Would my right hon. Friend consider encouraging this kind of training because of the shortage of skilled and semi-skilled people throughout the country due to the fact that the Opposition did not carry out their duties and responsibilities when they were in Government, and will he also consider not only encouraging training in the training centres but training in industry to make sure that we obtain the requisite number of trained workers?

Mr. Dell: We will certainly do everything we can to expand the sponsored training scheme. As for encouraging training in industry, as my hon. Friend knows, that is of fundamental importance, and we are doing a great deal in in this direction by grants in development areas and intermediate areas and through the activities of the industrial training boards and Government training centres.

Mr. R. Carr: What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for reducing the very large number of long-term unemployed, who are, of course, a reflection of the very high unemployment figures referred to just now by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Dell: We are considering, as I said in the House a few weeks ago, what more can be done to train unemployed people to fill the gaps now emerging in the economy for skilled people and semi-skilled people.

Commission on Industrial Relations

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many references are now being considered by the Commission on Industrial Relations.

Mr. Harold Walker: 12 references are currently under consideration.

Mr. Wainwright: Would my hon. Friend say what action he is taking against those firms refusing to accept C.I.R. recommendations for trade union recognition, and what progress is being made with managements to make certain that communication in industry is improved?

Mr. Walker: I think the House will share my regret that those firms which have been subject to recommendations and have not responded to them should not have done so. Further discussions are proceeding with the parties. On the long-term aspect, my right hon. Friend is proposing to take certain powers in the Industrial Relations Bill which will be presented to the House very soon.

Mr. Peyton: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to circulate in the FFICIAL REPORT a list of all those cases in which the Commission has so far intervened, and perhaps add his own comments on the results which may have been achieved, and perhaps estimate the amount of man hours fruitlessly wasted?

Mr. Walker: I do not think we could practically do that, but I hope the hon. Member is not taking a derogatory attitude about the rôle of the C.I.R. which we think—and I think the whole House will agree—has a very useful rôle to play in industrial relations.

Brewery Companies (Tied-House System)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what proposals aimed at mitigating the undesirable effects of the tied-house system have been put to the brewery companies; and what reply she has received.

Mr. Dell: The proposals have been put to the brewers as part of a continuing discussion on implementation of the Monopolies Commission Report. It would not be appropriate to disclose the details at this stage as the consultations are still in progress.

Mr. Lipton: Have not these proposals been before the brewery companies for at least a month? How much longer is my right hon. Friend going to wait? Is it not rather odd that the brewery companies, and their Tory friends who talk so much about individual freedom, are reluctant to allow individual freedom of choice in public houses?

Mr. Dell: I am sure we shall get a reply from the breweries quite shortly.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Has the Minister in mind the Monopolies Commission's Report which said that any change in the tied house system should be preceded by a review and alteration of the licensing laws?

Mr. Dell: Yes, I have that in mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade referred to the social implications in the Monopolies Commission's Report and the need to study this very carefully before action is taken.

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether, in her discussions with brewers on the question of tied houses, she will make proposals to ensure the continuance of public bars.

Mr. Dell: No, Sir. The object of these discussions is to bring about a greater degree of competition, and not to preserve any particular facilities.

Mr. Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that the brewers are not only destroying the social amenities of public bars in


many towns but that they are also increasing prices to a prohibitive level for those who use the public bar?

Mr. Dell: All these matters will be taken into account in the discussions that we are having with the brewers. The prime object of these discussions is to bring about a much greater degree of competition.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does the Minister agree that the brewing industry has shown very great restraint in price increases and has voluntarily accepted restrictions far beyond those accepted by the majority of industry?

Mr. Dell: There has been a recent increase in beer prices, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about restraint. I do not think that this bears on the question of whether more competition is required in this industry.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say how much the increases in the price of beer are caused by the substantial contributions that the brewers make to the Tory Party?

Mr. Dell: Now that these figures are published my hon. Friend can make his own calculations.

Industrial Relations (Legislation)

Mr. Bradley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she now proposes to introduce a Bill to deal with the problems of industrial relations.

Mr. Harold Walker: This will be a complex Bill. My right hon. Friend will introduce it as early as possible after Easter.

Mr. Bradley: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill will deal constructively with the root causes of industrial unrest like lengthy bargaining and dismissal procedures and not punitively with symptoms, which is all the Opposition are interested in?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I think that that reflects the Government's own approach to the reform of industrial relations. The need to tackle the underlying problems and not the symptoms.

Mr. Lane: In view of the fact that his right hon. Friend proposed a Bill

last summer, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the introduction of the Bill has taken such an extraordinarily long time?

Mr. Walker: I have said that it is a complex Bill, and I should have thought that on such a complex Bill as it will be the House would have wanted us to have the maximum consultation to make sure that we have it absolutely right.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that if his right hon. Friend was apparently ready with the introduction of the Bill last summer it has taken a year now to be ready?

Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill proposed last summer was an interim measure of limited scope.

Mr. Bradley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many references now before the Commission on Industrial Relations concern trade union recognition disputes.

Mr. Harold Walker: Three references now before the Commission on Industrial Relations concern trade union recognition. Reports have been published on six others.

Mr. Bradley: Yes, but has my hon. Friend any further references in mind? Is it not the case that the C.I.R. has achieved some notable successes like the B.S.R. dispute at East Kilbride? Could he not arrange for his Department to promote greater publicity of the more positive results of the Commission?

Mr. Walker: We do have more references under consideration, but I do not think I can disclose them in advance while the references are the subject of consultation with the parties affected. On the point of publicising the rôle of the C.I.R., I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission has justified and is justifying its creation and is playing a useful rôle in industrial relations, and I would hope that greater attention would be paid to the positive measures which the Commission is recommending and the positive achievements it has to its credit.

Mr. Scott: Would the hon. Gentleman consider, in drafting the Bill, giving a greater say in these recognition disputes


to the workers who are involved and giving them a chance to express by ballot their views as to which union should represent them, if any?

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend has pointed out to the House before that we do not rule out the usefulness of the ballot in certain circumstances, but we do not think it is the whole answer by any means.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can the Commission on Industrial Relations do anything about the 3,000 workers Odhams sacked last night in Watford as a result of an industrial dispute?

Mr. Walker: I am afraid I require notice of that.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she proposes to introduce legislation to place the Commission on Industrial Relations on a statutory basis.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Government propose to put the C.I.R. on a statutory basis in the Industrial Relations Bill which will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. Tuck: Is it not true that the Commission on Industrial Relations has also shown the way to reducing industrial strife particularly in union recognition disputes, and will the Secretary of State introduce legislation as soon as possible to enable it to widen the scope of its activity?

Mr. Walker: We will, as I said, be introducing legislation as soon as possible, but the scope of the activity of the C.I.R. I do not think will be appropriate for the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, far from being reduced, industrial strife has actually been increasing very substantially indeed, and that the figures for 1969 were the highest on record? Is it not about time that the Government were prepared to initiate a cost-benefit analysis into all these commissions and boards and councils which have been set up?

Mr. Walker: There are many Questions on the Paper about strike statistics and so on.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Would my hon. Friend remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that deaths in industry are up 7 per cent. this year as well, and that perhaps he should address himself to that problem?

Commission for Industry and Manpower

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what response she has received to her consultative document on a Commission for Industry and Manpower.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the discussions she has had about the proposed Commission for Industry and Manpower.

Mr. Dell: The Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and a number of other organisations, have given my right hon. Friend their views and these have been taken into account in the Commission for Industry and Manpower Bill which is now before the House.

Mr. Tuck: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Confederation of British Industry has tried to sabotage the recovery in the nation's economic position by refusing—[Laughter.] This is serious—

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Hon. Members opposite are not interested.

Mr. Tuck: They seem to be acting like clowns—by refusing to notify price increases on a voluntary basis, and will my right hon. Friend use her statutory powers to require notification of such price increases?

Mr. Dell: I do not think it would be right to say that the Confederation of British Industry is trying to sabotage the nation's economic recovery. I understand that the Confederation of British Industry has now recommended its members to continue to notify price increases but without the period of advanced warning which has been given heretofore. I expressed yesterday my concern about the matter, and my right hon. Friend will naturally have to consider what action would he appropriate.

Mr. R. Carr: Is it not true that the undertaking given voluntarily by industry


about advance warning of price increases was given for a temporary period, as part and parcel of a temporary prices and incomes policy, and since the policy has been entirely abandoned by the Government is not the C.B.I. merely acting in line with Government practice?

Mr. Dell: I know of the right hon. Gentleman's support for the C.B.I. in this matter. The voluntary notification of incomes continues, and I am glad to see that at any rate the C.B.I. is continuing voluntarily to notify prices. What I regret is that it now seems to be unwilling to give the Department sufficient time to investigate these price increases and to consider whether it would be appropriate to refer them to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This is a very grave step and I regret that it has been taken.

Wage and Salary Awards

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many wage and salary awards notified to her in the last three months have been restricted to a 2½ per cent. increase.

Mr. Harold Walker: Information is readily available only about major awards involving 10,000 or more workers. Two such awards involving increases of 21 per cent. or less have been notified, although in one case the increase was more than 2 per cent. at an annual rate.

Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this makes a complete farce of the whole of the incomes policy, since the whole idea was that some would get the minimum to enable others to get the maximum? Does he not agree that most of the awards have been plus the maximum?

Mr. Walker: It is a matter for general regret that the guidance laid down in the current White Paper has not been more closely observed.

Remploy Limited

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the average number of severely disabled workers employed by Remploy Limited in 1969; and what was the corresponding figure for 1960.

Mr. Dell: The average number of severely disabled workers employed by Remploy Limited last year was 7,486, as compared with 6,329 in 1960. The policy of expansion is to continue in 1970.

Mr. Archer: Would my hon. Friend agree that the expansion is particularly gratifying in Remploy's silver jubilee year? Can he say what proportion of these workers are able, in time, to find their way back to normal industry?

Mr. Dell: I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to the fact that this is Remploy's 25th anniversary year. I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate it on what it has achieved throughout that period. As to my hon. Friend's second point, I cannot give him an answer without notice. I am afraid that the proportion is not great. This type of employment is for people requiring sheltered employment.

Industrial Relations

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will hold further discussions with the Confederation of British Industry so as to encourage it to take initiatives to improve industrial relations comparable with those taken by the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Harold Walker: My right hon. Friend has repeatedly stressed the need for managements to take the lead in seeking to improve industrial relations.
I understand that the Confederation of British Industry is reviewing the rôle of its members in the reform of industrial relations, and has also held important discussions with the Trades Union Congress on current problems. The industrial relations legislation which my right hon. Friend will introduce will further stimulate a reappraisal by many employers of their rôle and responsibility.

Mr. Prentice: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend if he would not agree that the characteristic posture of too many employers' leaders is to stand on the sidelines and pontificate abut the failings of strikers and trade unions? Since so many industrial disputes are clue to bad management, would my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the C.B.I. should attempt to take the


kind of initiative which the T.U.C. has been taking?

Mr. Walker: It is a matter of regret that management has not responded in the way that the T.U.C. has in adopting a co-operative attitude towards its responsibilities, in helping reduce the number and incidence of strikes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's observations.

Mr. Peyton: Does the hon. Gentleman recall his right hon. Friend's statement that power was now on the shop floor? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend to say quite clearly where is the responsibility? It is now separated from power.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend was drawing attention to the realities recognised by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, among others. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need for responsibility to go hand in hand with power. Equally, the Royal Commission drew attention to the fact that management has the primary responsibility for the reform and conduct of industrial relations.

Elliotts of Newbury Ltd. (Report)

Mr. R. W. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to receive the Commission for Industrial Relations Report on Elliotts of Newbury Limited.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations on Elliotts of Newbury Ltd. was published on Wednesday, 18th March, 1970 (Cmnd. 4311).

Mr. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the report compliments were paid to the responsibility of the trade unions? Would he try to encourage the employers to foster harmonious relations in the industry by coming to terms with the union?

Mr. Walker: It is my hope that the company will speedily respond to the recommendations of the C.I.R.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Minerals excavation, Brent Knoll

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to publish the report of his

inspector who conducted the appeal by Mr. Bond against the refusal of Somerset County Council to permit minerals excavation and the regrading of land on the site of Brent Knoll; how long it has taken to prepare this report; and what are the reasons for the delay.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The inquiry was held in October, 1969. The case is a complex one but the inspector's report was submitted in December and will be made public when I issue my decision, which I expect to do shortly.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the Minister aware that not only Mr. Bond but a large number of my constituents are concerned with the results of this inquiry, and that I should be grateful if he could expedite the answer as soon as possible?

Mr. Greenwood: I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. He realises that this is a rather difficult case and that important amenity considerations are involved. There are also a number of extremely technical questions to be considered. I appreciate the need for speed and I will give my decision at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

State-controlled Industries (Chairmen and Board Members' Salaries)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to ensure that future adjustments in the salaries of the chairmen and board members of state-controlled industries will be related to the financial performance of these industries and the extent to which they improve their service to the consumer.

Hon. Members: Where is the Minister?

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order. The Minister is not here. This is a very important Question, and I understand that an announcement is expected.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): This clearly is a most important Question. It is one that my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Civil Service


is considering. No doubt he will communicate with the hon. Gentleman at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. We are interested to hear any comments that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government may have to make. We welcome and are deeply grateful to him for his assurance that his colleague is considering this Question. But, Mr. Speaker, would you think it fitting to remind the right hon. Gentleman that notice is given on the Order Paper of Questions in order to give Ministers adequate opportunities beforehand to think up answers and that they are also under notice to arrive at the proper time? Not even the urbanity of the right hon. Gentleman is sufficient to excuse the gross negligence, discourtesy and lack of regard for the House which the Government are once again showing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with only one point of order at a time. The House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. William Hamilton: In looking at the Order Paper I find that 11 Tory Members who had Questions down are absent, although the House is still sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] In fact I met one who was going off for a week in Malta, starting last night. It is shocking behaviour towards this House.

Mr. Speaker: Again the House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order. Are we still to be given this extremely unsatisfactory answer? The other Minister intervened and said that his right hon. Friend, who has now arrived, was considering the matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the matter or not and are we to be given a satisfactory answer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call on the Minister to answer the Question.

The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With the leave of the House and with sincere apologies for the unintended discourtesy, I should like to reply to Question No. 68.

I do not believe that this would be a practicable course.

Mr. Taylor: Although I fully accept the Government's policy that there should be adequate salaries in the nationalised industries, salaries which are comparable with those paid by private corporations, may I ask whether the Minister feels that it would help the public enterprises if we put the salaries of State board chairmen under the normal disciplines of the private enterprise system, whereby salaries were related to a financial target set by the Government? Would this not bring some incentive into the State boards, help the country in general and enable the Government to pay these chairmen the salaries they richly deserve?

Mr. Shore: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the nationalised industries have financial targets laid down in the White Paper published in 1967. But, that apart, I do not think it is universal practice in large private firms to relate the pay and rewards and emoluments of their own top management necessarily to performance. Although this may be an interesting suggestion, it cannot easily be applied over the great range of industries with very different circumstances.

Mr. John Fraser: Is it not the case that salaries of chairmen of nationalised industries compare fairly poorly with those of chairmen of private enterprise concerns? If one compares the scale of responsibilities of the chairman of Marley Tiles with that of a chairman of a nationalised industry, the salary in the nationalised industry in relation to performance is very much lower than that obtaining in private enterprise. Is it not also true that nationalised industries serve social purposes and are not related solely to profit-making activities?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend makes a justifiable point. The House has recognised, as has the N.B.P.I. Report, that there was an enormous gap between the top rewards in the public sector—indeed it is often difficult to find comparable institutions in the private sector—and that, unless this was dealt with, a gap would emerge of a kind which would be damaging to the future performance of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider resuming the


practice that existed under the previous Government of issuing quarterly a White Paper setting out the names of the holders and their salaries?

Mr. Shore: I will certainly consider that suggestion. I had thought that practice to be an annual one.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unfair to the nationalised industries to be compared with private industries since many of the activities of the nationalised industries are related to public service more than anything else? When one takes into account what happened in the National Coal Board last year after a 10 per cent. increase and little profit, how would he pay the Chairman of the Coal Board in view of such an increase? If this policy had obtained throughout the whole of industry, perhaps we would not need to bother about the balance of payments in the years ahead.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. It is too crude a yardstick to apply to the determination of rewards at the top of the public sector simply the question of profitability. We know that certain nationalised industries, for understandable reasons, not only under this Government but their predecessors, have not been able in the conventional way to balance their books.

Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, before he arrived, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing said that he was considering the answer to this Question? Is it not clear from the fact that he has read the answer, that he had already considered the matter. Is it not unfortunate that one Minister stands up and stonewalls for another?

Mr. Shore: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. It would have been improper for him to have said that I had reached a conclusion when I had not stated my conclusion and he had no reason to believe that I had reached it.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend able to say how he compares these salaries with their counterparts in the E.E.C., since he has a wide knowledge of this matter?

Mr. Shore: That adds a dimension to the Question which I was not expecting

The question of comparability between public sector rewards and those in the private sector in other countries is a matter of which so far we have not taken notice.

Mr. Lane: In regard to the salary of the Chairman of the National Coal Board, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recent serious allegations made by the Chairman about failures in co-ordination over the application of clean-air policy? Could he assure the House that he will take up this matter with the Chairman of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Shore: That is not a matter for me to take up with the Chairman of the National Coal Board, but my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General had an opportunity not long ago, given to him by the Opposition, to make clear the Governments' concern—not only their concern, but their energetic action to overcome what I hope will be a temporary failure of supply to meet demand.

Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order. As I just missed my Question Nos. 20 and 21 to the Secretary of State for the Department of Employment and Productivity by the skin of my teeth, due to abnormal traffic hold-ups and domestic circumstances arising from the birth of my fourth grandchild, may I ask, in view of the continued presence of the Minister concerned, that my Question may now be dealt with, in view of the fact that there are still six or seven minutes to go before the Prime Minister is due to answer his Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. On behalf of the House I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his grandparenthood. I cannot go back.

Mr. Peyton: Would I be in order to say on behalf of this side of the House how glad we are that at least one hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House has achieved something?

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the salaries of the individual chairmen mentioned in this Question alongside the increased annual productivity of the respective industries, because the productivity of the nationalised


industries compares extremely favourably with that of private enterprise? Would he also care to put in the same table the salary of the official Leader of the Oppocition alongside any increase in his productivity since he has taken over?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will realise that it would be difficult to bring together all the relevant comparisons and to publish them in a single convenient form. On the matter of productivity we would be in some difficulty as to how best to measure—I am not thinking just of the Leader of the Opposition—the productivity of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his right hon. Friend who filled in for him is, I understand, to join a nationalised industry in the not-too-distant future? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend's joining this nationalised industry would be accelerated if the right hon. Gentleman announced an adjustment of salary levels in the public sector?

Mr. Shore: That is a hypothetical question. I am not aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does my hon. Friend agree that most of the industries which are at present nationalised had a pretty poor financial performance before they were nationalised? Will he consider the arguments in favour of bringing into public ownership private industries whose financial performance is based upon exorbitant profits?

Mr. Shore: That does not arise on this Question. I think that forward public ownership policy is a matter best discussed outside this House.

Mr. Tom Boardman: In making a comparison between the public and private sectors, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our achievements in exports are attributable to the private sector and hardly at all to the nationalised industries?

Mr. Shore: That is not the whole truth but, to the extent that it is true, it is for the simple reason that manufacturing industry accounts overwhelmingly for our exports. There is a small public sector in manufacturing industry and, whenever the public sector engages in manu-

facturing industry, it exports successfully.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend know of any special criteria which exist for the payment of heads of firms in the private sector? Will he explain why it is that, when some of these big industries in the private sector crash, collapse and go bankrupt, so often it seems that those at the top are pretty well cushioned and never seem to suffer?

Mr. Shore: The plain truth is that we do not know enough about the criteria which are used in the boards of large companies in determining the level of rewards for their top management. When one looks at this, one is always struck by the variation in practice. Some appear to be high, and others to be quite modest. There are no consistent criteria. This is a matter for the private sector.
The answer to my hon. Friend's second point is simple. In so many of our large firms, we have at the moment a substantial separation of ownership and management. In a sense, the top managements of large private firms are like salaried employees and get paid even when the firms over which they preside collapse. In that case, it is the shareholders who carry the loss.

Mr. R. Carr: Since the right hon. Gentleman is talking about inconsistency in criteria in settling pay in the private sector, and since he used to be an expert and, indeed, was responsible for these matters, can he say the sort of criteria that the Government are applying in their incomes policy at the moment?

Mr. Shore: Again, that is a different question and not one for me. As for the consistency of criteria in private firms, the important matter is to get the necessary information first in order that there can be informed public discussion. In the provisions of the Companies Acts, we have made it possible to collect more information about rewards at the top than was possible previously.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member announcing his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment stymies further supplementary questions.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Apropos the interesting suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), does he know—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has given notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That finishes questions on the matter.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I assume that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has taken this line in order to avoid the next two questions being reached, which are in the name of one of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Raphael Tuck: No. He has done it because he does not like me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am never interested in motives.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for participating in the negotiations on British entry to the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 22nd January to a question by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker).—[Vol. 794, c. 690.]

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot readily recall that answer. Does not my right hon. Friend think it quite important that his own presence, especially in the early stages of negotiations, would impress upon our own people as well as people on the Continent the importance which we attach to getting the right conditions, particularly as regards the agricultural policy and the consequent food prices, and more particularly so in view of the tepid approach of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio in his speech last night in Manchester, which

struck about the right chord in the view of many of us?

The Prime Minister: We have not heard from the Common Market countries the basis on which they want negotiations to start, but I have heard no suggestions about what they call a summit meeting. If there were one, that would be different. I made clear in my answer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be in general charge of negotiations on the Continent, but of course he will operate under the control of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
With regard to what my hon. Friend wants to be said to them, we have made it clear that we must get the right terms to enter. I have made clear also in the debate that we are extremely anxious to get in, if we can get the right terms, and that we will proceed to negotiate with full determination to that end.

Mr. Thorpe: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, whoever else negotiates, the Minister without Portfolio will not be included in the team? Does the Prime Minister agree that his right hon. Friend's speech yesterday at best showed his total opposition to political involvement and, at worst, gave increasingly the impression that this Government cast themselves in the rôle of Mr. Facing-Both-Ways on Europe and will be largely and improperly influenced by electoral considerations?

The Prime Minister: That is not how I read my right hon. Friend's speech. The position of the Government is clear. We are negotiating to get in with determination and, if the terms are right, we shall put a proposition to that effect before the House.

Mr. Moonman: While there will be satisfaction that my right hon. Friend has made the position clear, ought not he to recognise that there will be considerable anxiety in Europe about the remarks made last night by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio? One hopes that there will be no public discussion by Cabinet Ministers in future, even if they have private reservations.

The Prime Minister: The position was made clear by the Government in the statement that I made when the White


Paper was published. That was the decision of the Cabinet, and it carries the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. It was further developed in my statement in the House and those of my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Peel: Does the speech of the Minister without Portfolio last night, in which he said that the decision should not be left only to politicians, mean that the Prime Minister is considering a referendum on this in due course?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It does not. I have not read the whole text of the speech, nor, I presume, have other hon. Members. I am informed by my right hon. Friend that in the questions which followed the speech that point was put to him, and he specifically ruled out any question of a plebiscite, which would equally cover the word "referendum". That is not our policy. My right hon. Friend was saying, as I have said, that this is a matter not only for Parilament but for public debate. We have continued the public debate by publishing the White Paper and giving the House not only in the White Paper but in other ways, all the information that we can on which this public debate can take place. However, as far as I know, there is no public debate at all about the fact that the negotiations should go on, and go on in a meaningful way.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that the position is becoming more difficult because of the firm decision taken by the Six on the agricultural policy? Is it not clear, too, that the agricultural policy of the Common Market is not suitable to British conditions, and that there must be a renegotiation of this point in order for us to get into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: While there have been continuing and protracted meetings of the Council of Ministers, the agricultural Ministers and others on certain internal matters, I am not aware—but I will check this—that any decision about agriculture or the agricultural financial policy has been taken by the Six since the House last debated these matters. All the considerations which would affect the minds of right hon. and hon. Members were fully deployed during that

debate. We then knew all the facts that we know now on agriculture. The view of both Front Benches and other parts of the House was that obviously the question of agricultural financing represents one of the most central points in the negotiations. This does not mean that there has been anything to justify a change in our decision to enter into negotiations as quickly as possible and in a meaningful way.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Prime Minister say to what extent he considers the result in the marginal seat at South Ayrshire to have been attributable to the outright opposition to this country's entry into the Common Market by the Socialist candidate?

The Prime Minister: I never speculate on particular by-election results. The hon. Gentleman can take as much comfort from the South Ayrshire result as he finds appropriate.

RHODESIA

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will now meet the Heads of Government of Zambia and South Africa to consider the Rhodesian situation.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from Heads of Commonwealth Governments in regard to the situation in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet the Presidents of Zambia, Tanzania and other African countries and also the leaders of Portugal and South Africa to discuss the latest developments in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I have no present plans for meetings with these Heads of Government to discuss the Rhodesian situation. On contacts with the Commonwealth, I would refer to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 19th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 198.]

Mr. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread admiration for the outspoken condemnation of


apartheid, initiated by the Smith régime, by the Roman Catholic and other Churches in Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that Mr. Smith and his Government have revealed that they are out and out racialists, which we on this side of the House have always suspected?

The Prime Minister: I think that there will be very strong support not only for the idealism, but also for the courage shown by the leaders of the Catholic Church, by the leaders of the Anglican Church and by the leaders of the Nonconformist Churches, all of whom are in great difficulties about expressing in public what they said to me when I met them in Salisbury in 1965.
On the racialist nature of the present constitution and the régime's intentions, hon. Members may have heard, as I did, a British radio programme on an interview with Sir Roy Welensky in which, when asked about suggestions that there might be a last set of negotiations with the régime, he said that he did not see—I am paraphrasing, but the words are on record—how this could succeed because they were now committed publicly, in their own words, to a racialist constitution.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the reservations and criticisms of inadequacies as they are seen in Government policy towards the crisis in Rhodesia, there is growing concern abroad and, indeed, contempt for the treacherous opportunism on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their backdoor dealing, as is suspected, with the Smith régime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the possibilities earlier of dealing with Rhodesia in isolation, Rhodesia now has to be seen as part of the Southern African situation as a whole, of which Portugal is an important part? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything possible to pressurise Portugal on its totally unacceptable rôle in Southern Africa at the moment?

The Prime Minister: I think that, on the attitude of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary last week put the pertinent question to them, which no doubt, at their leisure, they will decide to answer. All I would say on that part of my hon. Friend's question is that, now that recog-

nition—even the recognition of a consulate—has been withdrawn by all countries except South Africa and Portugal, if the Opposition want to persist in their policy they could probably find a cheap consulate to maintain a continuing Conservative Central Office presence to deal with the régime.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider calling a special Commonwealth Conference because of the situation in Rhodesia and its rapid deterioration? We now see that the Churches are oppressed and that the principle of free speech is vanishing—[Interruption.] The Churches are being oppressed. If the Leader of the Opposition does not know it, he should—

Hon. Members: Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.

Mr. Molloy: I am leading to my question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want any help from the right hon. Gentleman. He might need some help from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.
My point is that the Church, free speech, free Press and everything has now been attacked in Rhodesia. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend try to urge responsible Members on the other side of the House to join with him, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has, in condemnation of Rhodesia and support the United Nations on the principles of freedom and democracy as this House of Commons understands them?

The Prime Minister: The Churches—I mean all the Churches—in Rhodesia are almost now the last remaining bastions of multi-racialism in that country. They know what is involved. They have said in the strongest terms this week that they consider that, because of their multi-racial operation on the basis of their church doors being open to worshippers of all races, they are in danger because of threats from the régime. Certainly the whole House, and the whole Commonwealth, would back the Churches in the stand that they have taken and will continue to take. I do not believe, however, that that is an argument for calling a special conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. We have had abundant discussions on all these matters at previous conferences. I


am in regular touch with my Commonwealth colleagues on all these matters and we shall be meeting in January next year. I do not see the need, in the light of the argument used by my hon. Friend, for an earlier conference.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister knows full well that we on this side of the House have always condemned apartheid whether in South Africa, which the Prime Minister has recognised as a State, or in Rhodesia. We have also made clear our opposition throughout to mandatory sanctions by the United Nations, because it takes the matter out of the control of the British Government, as we saw at the last meeting of the United Nations.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country the specific purpose of Government policy towards Rhodesia? Is it not right, as the question by his hon. Friend suggests, that there should be meetings between Government representatives and the other countries of Africa to consider whether a solution can be found? What is the precise objective of Government policy now towards Rhodesia?

An Hon. Member: What is the right hon. Gentleman's?

The Prime Minister: That is a question which I could turn back to the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition—[Interruption.]—but I will answer it. The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to refuse any recognition of a racialist régime, to refuse to recognise the racialist constitution, and to say that we will not put before this Parliament any proposals for independence in Rhodesia which do not fully honour, and can be seen to honour, the five principles which the previous Administration supported and on which they seem to have since ratted. This is our purpose and policy, and I believe that it is the policy not only of the vast majority of people in this country, but also of all civilised nations which have expressed an opinion on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman must ask himself how far his own equivocal and divisive speeches on Rhodesia have contributed to encouraging the régime—I emphasise the word "divisive"—because that has been his aim on Rhodesia.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister knows full well that my speeches have repeatedly reiterated the support of this side of the House for the five principles which we set out when in Government, and I did so in the last fortnight. I therefore challenge the Prime Minister on that and ask him to withdraw that absolutely unjustified accusation.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to my use of the words "equivocal" and "divisive", will he explain how he came at the Tory Party conference to call for a great divide on Rhodesia? If "divide" is not divisive, will he explain the meaning of the term? Will he also make clear his answer to the pertinent question of my right hon. Friend—namely, whether, if he is talking, on certain unlikely assumptions, of a further attempt to get a deal with the racialist régime, he would maintain the sanctions, which alone could make any further dealings with that régime—even if they were regarded as possible—meaningful, or would take them off before talking?

Mr. Heath: Let me make my position quite plain on that. I have never called for a great divide on Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister knows it. What we have done from this side of the House is to try to get agreement on Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister has dragged it down into the gutter. I have never suggested for one moment taking off sanctions before negotiations. The Prime Minister is denying any future possibility of negotiations, and his policy is therefore purposeless.

The Prime Minister: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last replied to my right hon. Friend's question. This means that a Conservative Government, if there were one, would continue sanctions. That is the first time we have heard that from the right hon. Gentleman. He and some of his hon. Friends abstained when sanctions were imposed; they voted against sanctions, and they supported the racialist régime in turning down the "Tiger" proposals. I am glad that he has said this; it helps to get a more bipartisan attitude. This is a very important step forward and I welcome it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Prime Minister: If I am asked to withdraw what I said on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has never called for a great divide on Rhodesia, I would ask him to look up the speech he made at his party conference, I think in 1968, although it might have been in 1967, when he called for a great divide on four issues. I cannot remember what the other three were, but I do remember Rhodesia. If the right hon. Gentleman denies that, let him look up his speech, as I have done.

Mr. Thorpe: The Prime Minister will recollect that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) very properly reported in confidence to the Government the result of his discussions in Salisbury. The Prime Minister will have seen the suggestions that the Official Opposition have been having secret talks in Salisbury. Has he received a denial of this damaging allegation, or, alternatively, has he received any information from the Opposition relating to any such alleged talks?
Secondly, since Portugal and South Africa still recognise the sovereignty in law of Her Majesty the Queen and have diplomatic representation in London, should not we suggest that, if they do not withdraw their consulates, we shall have seriously to consider reducing the status of their missions from that of embassy to that headed by a minister?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, I have not received any information from the Official Opposition on this point. If these accusations have been made it must be a matter for them. In reply to the second question, I do not think that bilateral action on our part with Portugal or South Africa is the right way. This matter is properly before the United Nations, and I believe that the United Nations would want to move as far as agreement can he reached in common on these matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House please state the business of the House for the week after the Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for after Easter will be as follows:

MONDAY, 6TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Electricity Bill.

Motion under Standing Order No. 43A relating to the Ports Bill.

TUESDAY, 7TH APRIL—Completion of the remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 8TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Commission for Industry and Manpower Bill.

Motion on the White Fish Authority (Minimum Prices) (Scotland and Northern Ireland) Scheme.

THURSDAY, 9TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.

FRIDAY, 10TH APRIL.—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 13TH APRIL.—A debate on the Middle East, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

As already announced, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday 14th April.

The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued on Wednesday and Thursday and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 20th April.

Mr. Heath: With reference to the Motion on the Ports Bill, as the Standing Committee has now covered 50 Clauses and only 11 remain, is not it ludicrous for the Leader of the House to introduce a Guillotine on the Bill? What has got the Government so jittery at this stage?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to make sensible progress. It is true that some progress has been made, but he feels that a guillotine Motion in Committee would lead to a more orderly debate and conclusion.

Mr. Heath: Is that a polite way of saying that the right hon. Gentleman has just given way to shouts from the dockers?

Mr. Peart: No, it does not mean that. In no circumstances are we intimidated by any section outside the House.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Bill on the abolition of live hare coursing will be introduced?

Mr. Peart: No, I cannot say.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: At what hour does the right hon. Gentleman intend to enter a guillotine Motion on the Ports Bill, and how long does he propose to provide for discussion of that Motion?

Mr. Peart: The Motion will come on at 10 o'clock and, under the Standing Order, two hours will be allowed for debate.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: As, last night, 3,000 workers were sacked from Odhams, of Watford, after an industrial dispute lasting for some time, can my right hon. Friend give time in the near future for a debate on the situation there?

Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend is interested in this matter, quite rightly, but, I cannot find the time for a debate.

Mr. Kirk: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary whether, when we come back after the Recess, he will make a statement about the progress of relief operations in Nigeria? It is difficult to get information on progress, as the Press are not allowed into the country.

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend, who is here, will note that, and I will also have a discussion with him.

Mr. Lipton: My right hon. Friend has no doubt taken note of Motion No. 210, relating to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and the Official Secrets Act, 1911.
[That this House calls upon Mr. Attorney-General to indicate what action he proposes to take following the publication in "The Times" newspaper on 19th March of a letter from the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone relating to the use of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.]
Has my right hon. Friend brought the Motion to the attention of the Attorney-General and, if so, may we expect a statement in the near future?

Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend must be aware, this matter is now sub judice, so it would be improper for me to say any more at this stage.

Mr. Berry: Is not it extraordinary that there is to be a guillotine Motion on the Ports Bill when we come back after the Recess, when 50 Clauses out of 61 have been dealt with? Would not the time be better spent doing something about the very old, whom the Government have so disgracefully neglected?

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart I cannot add to what I have already said about this. Other Governments have used the Guillotine in this way.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask my right hon. Friend when he will introduce the Orders or Regulations concerning Ten-Minute Rule Bills in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Peart: We shall have to have a debate on this, probably immediately after we come back.

Sir D. Renton: Why, during the week when we come back after Easter, are we not to have a debate on the Beeching Report on the courts, or on the Law Commission's report on the interpretation of Statutes, as to both of which matters the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to Questions from both sides of the House, has shown sympathy? When will debates on those reports take place?

Mr. Peart: I have sympathy about this matter, but I cannot find time during the week after the Recess. The business which I have announced shows a very full programme of activity, and for this reason I am unable to find time.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Now that the Government have announced their decision to go ahead with the building of the new town in central Lancashire, will my right hon. Friend find time, as soon as possible, for a debate on this subject, which is of considerable interest in North-East Lancashire?

Mr. Peart: I note the point made by my hon. Friend.

Dr. Winstanley: May I remind the Leader of the House that, apart from the brief and rather premature discussion on the Sachsenhausen matter, the House has not yet debated any reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, some of which call for Government or Ministerial action? May we have a debate about the Parliamentary Commissioner fairly soon?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a specific promise, but I will note what the hon. Member has said. There are many reports from various Committees, and it is a matter of deciding priorities.

Mr. Peyton: Whilst I welcome the fact that proceedings have not been issued against my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), does not the Leader of the House think that the Attorney-General would welcome the oportunity of making a statement during the week when we return to clear up some doubts? It appears that some selectivity characterises proceedings under the Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). A case is proceeding.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the increasing public concern about environmental problems, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we have not yet had the Government's comments on the report published six months ago by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the work of the Natural Environment Research Council? Are not the Government's comments getting very late in coming? May we have an opportunity of discussing the matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Peart: I will note what the hon. Gentleman says—not just because this is a matter of special interest to him but because it is important. I shall have a talk with my right hon. Friend about it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Schedules remaining to be discussed on the Ports Bill, relating to the position of the National Ports Authority and the port boards, are regarded as of crucial importance by the trade unions in the docks and by all those connected with the

docks? Will he ensure that the guillotine Motion will at least provide sufficient time for these important Schedules to be discussed?

Mr. Peart: I shall note what has been said. We shall have to wait for the Business Committee's report before seeing how we are to proceed.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)? It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may ask for a statement or for a debate. He must however, be careful what he says in this difficult position.

Mr. Boardman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Minister agree that it is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that this doubt should remain in people's minds about the selectivity that appears to have been applied in this case?

Mr. Peart: I cannot add to what I have already said in reply. The matter is now sub judice.

ROYAL ASSENT

I have to notify the House that in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Game Act, 1970.
2. Education (School Milk) Act, 1970.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Mr. Speaker: Before the first Adjournment debate begins I remind the House that I have made a timetable for the debates. I allowed more time, in theory, for the first debate because I realised that business questions and other matters might have to be dealt with at the beginning. But although the first debate will start 11 minutes late, it will, nevertheless, finish at 1.15 p.m. I must protect the later subjects.

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

ROYAL MINT

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am delighted to have this chance of raising in the House an issue in respect which many London Members have had approaches from their constituents, and which I cannot help feeling must be of some concern to Treasury Ministers.
The House will be aware that on 25th April, 1967, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the present Home Secretary—announced that the Royal Mint would be rebuilt at Llantrisant, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson), whom I am glad to see in his place.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the move would take place in two stages—stage 1 consisting of the building of a factory to manufacture coins from blanks, and stage 2, to be completed in 1973, to provide for the complete process of the manufacture of coins from virgin metal. That decision to move could not be and was not challenged at the time by anyone in the House, although arguments arose about location. The decision was fully in line with the policy pursued by both parties in respect of decentralising Government establishments wherever feasible.
Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that at the time substantial additional capacity would be required. He said:
It is 12 years since the rebuilding of the Mint was announced. Since then output has trebled mainly for export, and capacity for minting the decimal coinage is now also required. The existing site cannot be developed economically for these purposes…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1330.]
The decision to move was accepted by the Estimates Committee; indeed, in its Fifth Report, in July, 1968, it gave added reasons for moving. In paragraph 26, it said:
The move to South Wales presents a great challenge and opportunity for the Royal Mint. It gives them, for instance, the hope of restoring good inter-union relations and re-establishing the Joint Industrial Council which, regrettably, has not functioned at Tower Hill since 1958. It will also give them the chance greatly to increase their productivity by the introduction of technological

improvements, notably modern line production.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I accept—and the various deputations of operatives whom I have had the pleasure of meeting equally accept—that in the light of the then existing facts the decision to move was quite a reasonable one.
Further, it is not part of my case to argue that South Wales was not a proper location if, as was confidently expected, a cadre of skilled and experienced craftsmen could be persuaded to move, with their jobs, to Llantrisant. The new Mint could then be expected to maintain the high reputation that has been enjoyed for many years by the existing Mint at Tower Hill.
Crucial to the whole question, however, is the expected demand for new coinage. The Select Committee recognised that this must determine the capacity of the new Mint. In his evidence the Deputy Master of the Mint estimated that over the next 10 to 15 years the demand would average about 1,400 million coins a year. The Select Committee felt that that estimate was "a modest one". Output in 1968 was 1,357 million coins—almost exactly the same as in 1967. But, significantly, the coinage produced for export was only half the 1967 figure—456 million coins as against 925 million, while in 1966, the Mint at Tower Hill had produced between 75 and 80 per cent. of the world's available orders.
Since 1968 the minting of decimal coinage has kept the Mint very busy. The Llantrisant factory has produced over 1,400 million bronze coins since the start of production and the Mint at Tower Hill has produced the cupro-nickel coinage and done all the other work required of the Mint. It is fair to say that there has been some evidence of production difficulties at Llantrisant, with a considerable wastage. I shall return to that point later.
As the minting of decimal coinage is now approaching completion, it seems that a very serious situation is looming, for export orders now seem to have fallen away to a mere trickle, in place of the flood that we had in earlier years. I am given to understand that as a result, in a matter of three or four months there will be little work for the men at Llantrisant, while the Mint at Tower Hill is already


running at less than one-third of its capacity—at current output, a little over 10½ million coins a week.
My first question to the Minister of State, who, I understand, is to reply—a question of which I have given him notice—is: what is the future estimate of demand for coinage? Are the figures that I have been given anything like correct? Will he tell the House what the position is? Earlier this year I took the matter up with the Chancellor in correspondence and he admitted that there was a "lull in foreign orders". But he went on to say:
There is every reason to suppose that world coinage demand will grow and with it export earning opportunities for the Royal Mint.
I accept at once, as was stated in the 1968 Report on the Royal Mint, that there can be no predictable pattern in overseas demand for coinages. The Select Committee admitted the
difficulty of estimating the extent to which past export successes are likely to be maintained in the future".
My second question, therefore, is: what systematic market research is carried out by the Mint? Has the Royal Mint a marketing policy or does it simply wait for orders to come in from overseas? My hon. Friends and I find it very difficult to accept the Chancellor's optimism, and certainly the chairman and members of the joint trade union committees, with whom I have had a number of meetings, believe that the true seriousness of the situation is being concealed from him.
Since the war there have been only three periods in which the Mint has enjoyed boom conditions. In 1946 we went over from silver to cupro-nickel coinage. When this minting finished it was followed by redundancy. In the middle 1960s the United States Mint was closed for rebuilding and there was at the same time an upsurge of demand for new coinage from former colonies which had achieved independence or were decimalising their coinage. In 1966, the Royal Mint achieved the proud distinction of the Queen's Award for Industry. During the last couple of years the demands of United Kingdom decimalisation have provided a full order book. In the interim periods there have been varying levels of spare capacity.
What is it that the Chancellor believes he can see over the horizon to parallel surges of demand of that nature? Is it foreign revolutionary Governments demanding a new coinage? Are there any new independent territories likely to want coinage? It would seem that that sort of thing is a dangerously flimsy foundation on which to base the whole policy of the Mint.
Further, is it not a fact that many of the newly independent countries are building or have built their own Mints as a matter of national pride? Does this not represent a permanent loss of potential customers which we have hitherto enjoyed? Are there not whole areas of the world where we do not now exercise the sort of influence which automatically brought orders to London in earlier years?
Finally, is there not a trend towards the increasing use of paper money and, in the long run, towards the cashless society, of which we hear talk even now? In short, is the condition that we are now facing not, as the Chancellor said, a temporary lull in foreign orders, but a long-term cyclical trend, likely to continue for many years?
I do not know the answer to that. Only a full inquiry could be expected to produce the answer and throw any light on the position as it is likely to be over the next few years. If the inquiry concludes that this is just a temporary lull, I fully concede that a case for further delay falls down. Supposing that these fears are justified, however, supposing that this is a long-term cyclical trend and that after decimalisation is completed there will be a substantially lower level of output year by year, what would be the consequences?
If stage 2 were to be completed according to plan there would he massive overcapacity in the factory. Substantial sums would have been spent on new buildings and machinery with very little prospect of their ever being fully used. On 17th March, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked the Chancellor what was the most recent estimate of the cost of moving the Royal Mint to Llantrisant. The Financial Secretary said that he estimated the cost of the land, buildings and plant for the new Mint to


be £8 million. I presume that he was referring only to stage 2.
I wonder whether that is the full story. Presumably it does not include the sum for housing. We have recently had a supplementary estimate for £180,000 for the provision of 35 houses for Army Department constabulary at the Royal Mint at Llantrisant. That is about £5,000 a time.
All the while that this is going on there is ample capacity at the Mint in London to cope with the reduced flow of orders. I am told, and here again I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this, that since 1967 over £800,000 has been spent on modernisation of the Tower Hill Mint, including, and this was in a Parliamentary Answer to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), £120,000 in 1969 alone. New machines have been installed which have more than doubled the capacity of the old machines and which can now mint up to 280 coins a minute. This means that the same output can be achieved within a much smaller space.
If it is right that there is a long-term cyclical trend expenditure on the new Mint will be largely wasted and unnecessary.
There is another less quantifiable but more damaging consequence. I have already said that the viability of the new Mint must depend upon the transfer to Llantrisant of the key craftsmen willing to go. This morning I have seen a list of 367 men who are prepared to go if they can be given the necessary assurances. It would be quite wrong to regard the existing factory at South Wales as a Mint in the true sense. It undertakes only the final processes of stamping coins from blanks. It undertakes no fine art work, no shaped coins, none of the commemorative coins, and it so far has dealt only in bronze coinage. Even so, there has been a disturbingly high level of wastage. The Treasury admits to 1½ per cent. over a representative period.
The workers at Tower Hill put the figure significantly higher, at 3·69 per cent. wastage. In one week earlier this month 25 tons of coinage was returned from Llantrisant to Tower Hill for melting down comprising 20 pallets each containing 60 bags with £20 face value coinage in each bag. That was not an

isolated event, but has been happening with disturbing regularity. Therefore, costs at Llantrisant must be running somewhat ahead of estimates.
It is hardly surprising that only two weeks ago we had a further Supplementary Estimate for £11½ million for the Mint. Part of this was for higher wages, part for higher copper prices, but £670,000 is for additional expenses, including refining of scrap. I have emphasised this, because it demonstrates clearly that this is highly skilled work, requiring minute tolerances. Full operation, if the whole of the Mint were to go to South Wales, would be utterly dependent on the services of these 300 to 400 key craftsmen who would take to South Wales decades, and in some cases generations, of minting experience.
One of the things that comes out clearly in the talks that I and other hon. Members have had with these men is that if there is not likely to be a decent flow of orders to the new Mint in Llantrisant they simply will not risk going to South Wales. Who wants to risk the possibility of being laid off after a few months or a year or two in an area where the unemployment rate is now over 5½ per cent? If these key men will not go it will be a very brave Minister who will be prepared to forecast that the new Mint can hope to retain the reputation which Tower Hill has enjoyed for many years as the leading Mint in the world.
Already, there is some evidence of a lack of confidence. A recent Swiss order went to London at the insistence of the Swiss authorities. If the move were persisted in without the advantage of these skilled craftsmen going down to South Wales there would be a real danger that this long tradition would end and Llantrisant would become "just another Mint" rather than the world's leading Mint. This would be bound to make it more difficult to attract the dwindling share of world orders. We would end up with the worst of all worlds. The nation would have dissipated a vital reservoir of skill, built up over centuries; the new Mint starting from scratch without the advantage of the skilled men, would face a very difficult task indeed in building anew a comparable reputation. And if I may say so to the hon. Member for Pontypridd, it would be no kindness to the people of Wales if they were to find


themselves with another ailing industry on their hands, offering little security of employment and the last sort of establishment that ought to find its way to a development area with a high unemployment rate.
I do not in any way decry the ability and determination of the Welsh people, among whom I name my own forebears, to do their utmost to make a success of the venture. We know of the trading state at Treforest where redundant miners and others have been retrained and produce work of the highest quality. It will, however, take a very long time before the men at Llantrisant would be able to rebuild the world famous reputation of the Mint if they did not have the assistance of the skilled men, over 350 of them, from London in the first instance.
With so much at stake, therefore, with conditions now so starkly changed from the peak period in 1966–67, the case for an inquiry has become overwhelming. I am told that no contracts have been let for stage 2, and that even after a contract is let it will be 12 months before a single brick is laid. There would, accordingly, be little lost by a delay of two or three months while an inquiry is carried out. If, as a result of the inquiry, the fears were shown to be unfounded, this would inevitably give renewed confidence to the key workers, and it should prove possible to persuade them to take up new employment with a bright future in South Wales. On the other hand, if, unhappily, the anxieties which have been expressed turned out to be justified, there would still be time for second thoughts, still an opportunity to review the policy to take account of these vastly changed circumstances.
I beg the Government not to be obstinate and to refuse even to reconsider the matter. We on this side of the House want this venture to be a success, the success story of a move from congested London to a development area. But, before irrevocable steps are taken, we want to make sure that it will be a success. We need to know that the move will go forward in circumstances which will ensure the confidence of the management and of the workers both in London and, perhaps even more important in the long term, in Wales.

12.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Pearson: I have a constituency interest in the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who has just made a closely reasoned speech, since the Royal Mint, Llantrisant, is in the heart of my constituency. We have heard a call for an inquiry into the future of the Royal Mint, and the reasons for that demand have been given by the hon. Gentleman. All hon. Members realise that demands for the holding of inquiries are a periodic phenomenon. The hon. Gentleman's effort appears to be aimed at changing through the technique of an inquiry the firm decision to locate the Royal Mint in Llantrisant, and its propulsion comes, I think, from the protests of the workers at the Royal Mint, Tower Hill, through their trade union joint committee.
I readily accept that there is no anti-Welsh consideration animating the call for an inquiry. In the mustering of resistance to any transfer from Tower Hill to Llantrisant, attempts are being made to build up a case that the demand for coinage has significantly changed and that hopes of additional foreign orders have dwindled. The hon. Gentleman has himself made that point. Consequently, it is argued, the Tower Hill Mint could well carry on as it is, and there will be no need to close it down in 1973.
From my reading of the Annual Reports of the Royal Mint, I see the evidence as showing that over the years the demand for coinage has grown. In 1968, the production was 1,357 million coins, of which 299 million were made in Llantrisant. In 1965, production was only 1,000 million coins. Going further back, in 1920 it was only 260 million coins. So the trend is clear, although, as has been said, there is no firm predictable pattern of overseas demand. There is an ebb and flow, as there is for any foreign orders in the commercial world as a whole.
My researches lead me totally to refute any charge that there was confusion of mind in the considerations leading to the Government's decision that a new Royal Mint was necessary. For decades, the Royal Mint at Tower Hill had been short of space, confined within an area of 4½ acres and with no possibility of expansion.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I made no case about confusion. Indeed, I have made clear that both I and the workers with whom I have had several discussions fully concede that, if the conditions of 1967 still existed today, the move would be right and should go ahead. Our fear is that that is not so.

Mr. Pearson: I am gathering up the ends from news reports and so on which have sought to substantiate the general case being made.
I was pointing out that the area at Tower Hill is cramped, with no possibility of expansion. The new Llantrisant site, on the other hand, comprises 30 acres, and it ends a long period of uncertainty and speculation. Of course, it involves a break with tradition which has brought some misgivings in its train. No one can deny that a choice had to be made, but the many varying factors were carefully considered and weighed.
The records show that plans to meet the problems of the restricted and congested Tower Hill site had been thoroughly considered under three heads. The first was the partial rebuilding of Tower Hill. The second was the opening of a branch mint to handle decimalisation. Third, there was the question of moving the whole mint elsewhere. The 1967 Report of the Royal Mint stated that there were arguments on these questions, but it was increasingly plain that the balance of advantage lay in the third. Also it would be in keeping with the Government's dispersal policy.
Before Llantrisant was finally chosen, over 20 sites in all were considered. The conclusion was that it was the best. Phase 1 of the scheme has been completed. For several months, it has been operating successfully, after Her Majesty the Queen had struck the first coin on 17th December, 1969, accompanied by His Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales.
I go along with the claim that for the Tower Hill employees it is hard to lose one's long-standing locale of employment. It is disturbing to have to move across country to another place of work. They have my sympathy and understanding in that, but their jobs will be there if they move. All about us we see a breakdown of the former concept of a lifetime's stay at the same place of employ-

ment just across the road. There is now a greater need for mobility. In the United States on average, people move once every five years. Mobility is occupational as well. I seek not to imitate it here but only to illustrate that there is no need for any feeling that the Tower Hill workers are a pawn caught in someone else's chess game.
Among those who have already made the move from Tower Hill to Llantrisant, sure signs exist that good will and contentment are live elements in their own and their families' lives. In the context of the call for an inquiry into the Royal Mint, the House should be mindful of the past heavy drain of men and families who had to transfer from Wales to industry in and around London. The drift had been one way for far too long. This modest reversal of the trend the other way from Tower Hill to Llantrisant is poetic justice and needs no inquiry as to its rightness.
The Tower of London and Tower Hill between them have contained the Royal Mint for upwards of 750 years. That is not a bad bite of the cherry. Let Llantrisant operate the Royal Mint for the next 750 years and Wales will do the United Kingdom proud.
I urge the Tower Hill workers—fine craftsmen that they are—to call it a day and come and enjoy for the rest of their working days a modern and a first-class centre of employment with surroundings of natural beauty. Round about there is much farmland and hill and vale, and in spring, when the country greens are replacing winter's browns, there is a cleanness and a lightness that will surprise most people who consider South Wales an industrial desert of coal and steel.
I hope that the Government will stand their ground firmly in face of today's intriguing demand for an inquiry. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply, will again reaffirm that there has been no change in the Government's intention to transfer the Royal Mint to Llantrisant and that plans for the construction of phase 2 will proceed unimpeded.

12.42 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I want briefly to support the argument


put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) for an inquiry into this problem. My hon. Friend has made out an unanswerable case. Some of my constituents are very anxious about this matter and do not want to move to South Wales because of fear of redundancy in a year or two. There is nothing anti-Welsh in my attitude. I was born in South Wales and my mother was Welsh. I should like to see prosperity return to that part of the world and to all parts of Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford has made out a very strong case for an inquiry into this in view of the changed circumstances which seem to have arisen since 1967. Therefore, I hope the Minister of State will be able to announce that he will concede this inquiry which can only delay the matter for a few months and will set at ease the minds of those employees who will be affected.
A point which has not been raised so far is what will happen to the building in which the Royal Mint is at present situated. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson) said that the Mint had been at the Tower Hill site for 750 years. The building has been there for 200 years; it is a lovely building and I hope there is no question of its being pulled down or destroyed, but that it will be preserved, whatever may happen to the Mint itself. I should like to ensure that the future of the employees at the Mint is preserved, even if it means keeping the Mint where it is.

12.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): It was very helpful of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) to seek to raise the question of the Royal Mint before we rose for the Easter Recess, because matters which he has touched on today—and which have been mentioned by other hon. Members—have been brought to the attention of hon. Members generally during the last two or three months. They, in turn, have made representations to the Treasury and we have been giving very careful thought to these points. It is probably unnecessary for me to say that my right hon. Friend the

Minister without Portfolio, who is sitting beside me now, and in whose constituency Tower Hill lies, has been assiduous in ensuring that the concern felt by the trade unions about the future was fully understood. He has taken a close personal interest in events since 1967 and I know that he has made a special effort to be with us today.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope that the Minister of State, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, will acknowledge that we on this side of the House have been equally assiduous and that the slur which the right hon. Gentleman hurled in my direction at Question Time the other day was totally unwarranted.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think it is necessary for me to say what I am sure the House would generally understand. As I say, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter today. It is not a party issue in any respect, but it is equally right to draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend is in a special position and has direct and personal responsibility which, at all times, he has carried out in his constituency rôle.
I also welcome the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Arthur Pearson). He has served with distinction in the House now for more than 30 years and we shall greatly miss him when he retires, as I understand he will, at the next election. He spoke with proper pride of the new Mint at Llantrisant and what it means to the Welsh valleys and those who work there. He referred to the drift back which anybody with a sense of history will find meaningful. I was also glad that he said that all who have moved there from London have settled down. I am sure that the Minister of State for Wales, who is also present, would endorse this. Things have been going very well, and certainly the arrival of the Mint in Llantrisant has been welcomed and is a symbol of a great deal more.
The fact is that the question of the Mint and its location is an emotional matter, which should not surprise any of us. It is natural that the movement out of London of so long-established and historic an institution should arouse feelings of regret. My right hon. Friend the


Chancellor of the Exchequer is also, as Master of the Mint, very conscious of the problems of those of the staff on Tower Hill who face either uprooting their families to go to Wales, or breaking links with the Royal Mint which for some—a few—have lasted all their working lives. I noted what the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) said about the future of the site not yet being determined, but I share entirely with him the feeling that there is a need to consider this as a historic monument and that we should seek to find a proper way to preserve it.
On the other hand, as I have said—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said—the new Mint is a symbol of new life and new techniques in an area where redevelopment and renewal are a first priority. The Government's decision to build a new Mint at Llantrisant and to close the Mint at Tower Hill by about the end of 1973 was announced in the House in April 1967. For nearly a quarter of a century, it has been recognised that the existing premises on Tower Hill were overcrowded and badly laid out by modern standards and rebuilding of the Tower Hill site had been shown to be impracticable, except at exhorbitant cost and unacceptable interference with production.
Hon. Members in the House at the time of the announcement—as I think the hon. Gentleman conceded—warmly approved the intention of bringing employment to one of the development areas. As I remember it, there was fierce competition amongst representatives of other development areas who would have liked to have had the industry in their own constituencies. The decision was important not only because of the employment that the Royal Mint would bring directly to the area; it was also a measure of the Government's overall determination to pursue an active policy in the development areas; the Mint would form part of the nucleus around which new industry could grow, and would be encouraged to grow, in South Wales. The Estimates Committee—as the hon. Gentleman has also said—following its examination of the Royal Mint in 1968, welcomed the expectation of increased productivity promised by technological improvement and modern layout.
The plan announced in 1967 was to build a new Mint in two stages. The first stage was to consist of the buildings and plant required for converting blanks into decimal coins. The second, and less urgent, stage was the addition of the buildings and plant which would make up a complete Mint. The first part of the factory was completed about 15 months ago and has since been continuously employed in the production of the stockpile of decimal coins that will be needed on D Day. Meanwhile, the Mint on Tower Hill has remained fully occupied producing domestic coins for current use and coins for export.
The completion by about the end of this year of the decimal stockpile means a substantial reduction in the output required from the Royal Mint as a whole, and therefore necessitates the transfer of export and current domestic coinage from Tower Hill to Llantrisant, with consequent redundancy on Tower Hill. This is what has triggered off recent concern about the Mint. I must emphasise, however, because this is crucial, that the completion of the decimalisation programme by about the end of this year was foreseen from the outset. In other words, progress so far has been according to plan. There have been no surprises.
I therefore come to the argument which was put forward by the hon. Gentleman that circumstances have changed since 1967 and that a decision, which I understood the hon. Gentleman accepted as having been right at that time, was for this reason no longer right. There are two principal aspects of this issue. First is the argument—though the hon. Gentleman did not put it as a major point today—that the employment prospects in the London area have in some way changed. The second point, on which he rested and on which he asked for detailed information, is that there has been a deterioriation in export prospects. He referred to a long time trend—a cycle. He referred to cyclical fluctuations the end of which we could not foresee. The second argument will be found on examination not to be the case.
May I say this briefly about the employment position. Employment prospects in London are as good as anywhere in the United Kingdom and are likely to remain so. We should have that firmly on the record. If anything, they are


better now than they were in 1967 and considerably better than in the development areas. The important comparative figures are surely the unemployment percentage in London which is 1·4 per cent. and that in the Pontypridd travel-to-work group of employment exchanges, which includes Llantrisant, which is about 5·5 per cent.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin indicated assent.

Mr. Rodgers: There are no two ways about this—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman nods his head—that on employment grounds, Llantrisant has a clear claim for priority. None of the arguments in 1967 have been invalidated since.
With regard to the future coinage demand, on the most careful examination, the view is taken that there is no reason to suppose that the present lull is more than temporary. The hon. Gentleman referred to fluctuations in the past, and he gave us some figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd used the words "ebb and flow". Demand has always been subject to wide fluctuation, but there has been an eightfold increase in the average export demand satisfied by the Royal Mint over the last 50 years, and careful investigations clearly suggest that this broad trend is likely to be maintained.
A study of past statistics shows that the present trough is by no means unprecedented. For example, from a peak in 1952, demand fell to less than half by 1955, to rise again to a higher peak in 1961. All the evidence based on international economic and demographic trends suggests that in spite of fluctuations, peak demand and average demand will continue to rise. I am satisfied that we should accept the accumulated wisdom of the Mint in this respect.
The Mint has considered the factors which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and they are real ones. Obviously, it must look at the marketing prospect in making its decision, but I think there is no one more experienced than the Mint in the world's coinage export market, and this is its considered view.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: But the point is this. The Mint has got to persuade these 367 men to go down to South Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White) indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but the fact remains that they have got to be persuaded to go. If what the Minister of State, Treasury says is right, surely it would be better to establish the facts by means of a full inquiry when all the arguments and the background could be made known. That is the way to persuade the people to go. At the moment the hon. Gentleman is simply asking them to take it on trust, and this they are not prepared to do.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman should be a little patient. He provokes me into dealing with some other matters earlier than I had expected to deal with them. He has referred to the need to persuade the 367 men to go to South Wales. There is no need for the persuasion to be as successful as that. The important point is that the matter has been carefully examined, and the greatest expertise lies with those who have been exceedingly successful over the years in ensuring that the Royal Mint should have an outstanding international reputation and that it should get the orders. They have reconsidered it. I hope that as a result, the men will be persuaded. There are, however, occasions when persuasion does not carry the day, however powerful the argument. The hon. Gentleman may argue till the cows come home on economic grounds. The argument would be powerful, but if it were a political argument it would not be very convincing to me.
Even if continuing growth in the demand for coins were unlikely—supposing that the fears were justified, as the hon. Gentleman said—it would still be right to concentrate the Royal Mint at Llantrisant where there is new machinery and room for an efficient layout of all processes. It has been suggested that the introduction of high-speed coining presses eases the problem of space on Tower Hill, but the amount of material to be handled and stored is unaffected and there is a tendency for other modern coining equipment to take up more room rather than less. Although some improvements have been carried out on Tower Hill since 1967, complete rebuilding would still be necessary. Concentration on Llantrisant would thus be the


right course, judged purely from a Mint point of view. To continue a division of work between Tower Hill and Llantrisant longer than necessary would be uneconomic and could be damaging to the Royal Mint's export effort.
Even if the Mint's export expectations turned out to be optimistic, the case would remain for concentrating production at Llantrisant where it can be most efficiently undertaken. To abandon Llantrisant would mean not only writing off much of the £3½ million which has already been invested there, but in all probability greater expenditure on Tower Hill than would be involved in completing the Llantrisant Mint.
It has been said—the hon. Gentleman mentioned it today—that there is an exceptionally high rate of rejects among coins struck at the new Mint and a need to sub-contract work because of a lack of skill. I am sure that it was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, by praising the high skill of those who work at Tower Hill, to reflect on the skill of those in Wales who are undertaking the task, although by implication he seemed to do so. We all praise those who have done the job in the traditional location, but without suggesting that their colleagues are less competent in Llantrisant. There is no evidence at all to substantiate such an allegation.
I must refute the allegations which have been made—though not by the hon. Gentleman—that the new Mint will lack the ability to maintain the high tradition of skill for which Tower Hill is rightly famous. Indeed, the quality and keenness of the locally-recruited staff, which we knew would be forthcoming, has surpassed expectations. I am sure hon. Members will be glad to know that. For sensible operational reasons, production at the new Mint has until now been confined to the decimal coinage, but there is no reason to doubt that, given the necessary tools, the new organisation will be able to cope with a more varied programme, including special coins and medals.
It has been suggested that a large influx of skilled labour from Tower Hill will be necessary, but this is not so. The success of Llantrisant does not depend upon a large transfer from Tower Hill. The necessary skills either exist in South Wales or can be developed. This

is already clear from our experience to date. On the other hand, no difficulty is expected in employing at the new Mint those Tower Hill employees who are eligible to transfer and choose to do so. The indications are, however, that this number will not be large.
The locally recruited staff and their colleagues transferred from Town Hill have, as my hon. Friend mentioned, made splendid progress towards the completion of the decimal stockpile, and again I take the opportunity to congratulate them and to express thanks to all the local people in the Llantrisant area and to the local authorities who in various ways have contributed to the success.
A question not raised in today's debate, but mentioned at earlier stages in discussion of this matter, is that of subcontracting. The Estimates Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, looked most carefully into this question in 1968 and I think in paragraph 25 of its Report recognised that the co-operation of these two private Mints had been of considerable benefit to the Royal Mint and particularly to the country's export trade. I am sure that it will continue to be so and we can see no case for disturbing a very long-standing relationship.
I appreciate—and I say this at every stage because all of us have the greatest sympathy for those who are now working at Tower Hill—that it may seem difficult to those working there to accept that sub-contracting should go on when they are likely to become redundant. But, quite apart from this over all export question which I think is vital, as the Estimates Committee did, the discontinuance of sub-contracting would not in practice significantly affect either the numbers or the timing of the impending redundancies on Tower Hill. At the most it might delay events by a few weeks.
The number of industrial staff at Tower Hill is 924 and 330 of them have been appointed since April 1967. These were informed at the time of appointment that the employment offered was strictly temporary. Most of the men who may become compulsorily redundant this year will be from this short service group. For the remainder, which, taking account


of retirements and other natural wastage, is unlikely to number more than 400 by the end of 1973, the plan to keep some operations going on at Tower Hill until then will introduce an element of choice in the timing of those who wish to leave the Mint and will give the management the maximum opportunity, which I am sure it will take, of placing men in other jobs in the public service in the London area. If these men choose to leave the Government service, they will be able to draw benefits either under the National Superannuation Act or by analogy with the Redundancy Payments Act, whichever is the more favourable. These benefits vary according to age, length of service and status, but men with between 10 and 20 years' service might expect to get anything between £350 and £1,000.
As I have said, in the last few months we have been fully alive to the issues which have been aired today. We have considered very carefully all aspects of the problem, including feelings which are strongly and sincerely held. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was right to bring this matter to the Floor of the House but, having listened carefully to him and to the hon. Member for Wembley, South, I must say frankly that no new considerations have emerged. In these circumstances, I must confirm the Government's decision to move the Mint to Wales and make the position quite clear, in everyone's best interest.
I have the greatest sympathy with all those involved, as I have already made clear. This has not been an easy matter and no one wishes to take an unnecessarily harsh course. But an inquiry could not add further to our knowledge. It would only create uncertainty where none should now exist.
In view of representations against the move to Wales, culminating in this debate, action on plans to transfer work from Tower Hill has, since the beginning of this year, largely been suspended. The management and the Government felt that this was the right course to pursue. But further delay would make a smooth transfer impossible and the time has come when the management of the Mint can no longer put off the implementation of these plans. In the interests of all the staff of the Royal Mint in London and in Wales, I hope

very much that the management will be given full co-operation in putting the plans into immediate effect.
The Royal Mint has been on or very near its present site for over 600 years. As I have said, it would be surprising if the impending severance of this long connection was painless and without problems. But the name will live on in the new location and I am sure that Llantrisant will be worthy of the tradition that Tower Hill will bequeath to it.

SCHOOLS, WATH AND KIRKLINGTON (CLOSURE)

1.5 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: In the past I have raised in this House the failure of the Government to build new primary schools in place of congested and out-of-date schools, particularly in the area of my constituency north of York. These schools, as the House well knows, and as the Plowden Report showed, are a blot on our educational landscape. This afternoon, however, I am on a different point. I am protesting against the decision of the Minister to allow a new primary school to be built and three village schools to be closed.
There is a remarkable history to this decision. It is one which, in my submission, is quite foreign to our conception of democracy and is apparently the product of a hierarchical system that resembles the 16th century rather than the 20th century.
At Wath and Kirklington, there are at present two-teacher primary schools with 41 and 21 pupils respectively. Six and a half years ago, it was learnt that the Ripon Diocesan Board of Education planned to close these two Church of England schools and, with the use of funds of the Wath Educational Charity—the Samwaies Trust—to build a new school somewhere in the parish of Wath.
After a certain amount of dispute over the selection of a site, one on glebe land by the railway station was, on 13th December, 1966, unanimously approved by the school managers, the trustees of the Samwaies Charity and the parents' association. It was understood that the local education authority agreed with the selected site.
No more was heard of the matter and no local consultation took place before suddenly, in March, 1969, the Ripon Diocesan Education Committee announced that it had decided to build a new school at Burneston, seven miles away, with the help of money from the Wath Charitable Trust, and, after closing the three schools, to teach 110 children from this wide area in the new building. There are two aspects of this decision that cause concern. The decision itself, and the procedure under which it was reached.
I take the latter first. If this had been a local education authority school, the local councillor would have been a party to the selection of the site in 1966. He would have been in constant touch with the county education committee and its officers. If he had learnt of the change of policy towards the three-school merger, he would have arranged a public meeting at which the views of the parents and voters could have been freely expressed. He could then have followed that up by raising the matter in the county council before a final decision was reached.
But, as these are Church of England aided schools, the villages had no representation on the body that decided the fate of their schools. The Rector of Wath, who is chairman of the school managers, has no position on the diocesan education committee, and no right of audience before it. In fact, I believe that the Minister will confirm that he was refused a right of audience. The decisions are taken by clerics with no concern for, and little local knowledge of, the villages, and, as happens in these circumstances, the decisions tend to be the decisions of the Committee's officials.
No opportunity for a local public meeting was provided to enable the diocesan education committee to hear the views of the teachers, parents and inhabitants. After a silence without contact for two-and-a-quarter years, the diocesan education committee announced its surprising decision without any form of local consultation.
When I wrote to the Minister of Education in September, 1969, asking him to arrange a public local inquiry, he replied saying that it was not his
…practice to hold local inquiries in dealing with Section 13 cases".

I appreciate that, but the majority of Section 13 cases deal with L.E.A. schools and follow the normal democratic procedure. This allows for public meetings to take place before the Ministerial stage is reached. The result of the procedure adopted in this case is that Wath, which has had a primary school since 1864, is to lose its school without a public meeting or inquiry.
The Minister wrote a courteous letter to me and claimed that the move was educationally and economically sound. She will, no doubt, be able to prove that to sweep small children from a wide area into one school is the cheapest course. I admit that she is probably right to say that it is economically sound; that is, only from the point of view of saving money.
But how can the right hon. Lady maintain that it is right, educationally, for these small children to have to make long bus journeys, so that they arrive tired for their lessons and, in some cases, do not get home in the evening until an hour after the rest of the primary schoolchildren in the area? The Minister maintains that a 20-minute bus journey is involved. If she cares to accompany the children on some of these journeys to and from school she will find that a rate of progress of 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. cannot be maintained when traversing these villages. I assure her that, on average, these journeys will take a full hour. Many of the parents desire to give their children a mid-day meal at home. This will now become impossible.
I stress that this plan has the additional disadvantage that it is mixing up children from two quite distinct districts. Wath, Melmerby, Kirklington and Hutton Conyers, which might have supported the original scheme, are villages which use Ripon as their market town, while Burneston uses Bedale.
By confirming the diocesan education committee's decision, the Minister has not only condemned these young children to long bus journeys, but has also made parent-teacher co-operation very difficult and, by taking children out of their neighbourhood at such a very early age, will undoubtedly unsettle them. I ask the Minister to reconsider this decision. If she refuses to do this, will she consider as an alternative, providing at Wath or


Kirklington an infants' schools for children from 5 to 7, so that these very young children may be educated near their families and have a shorter period away from home?
Whatever the final decision is in this case, I beg the Minister to give further thought to the procedure for closing aided schools, to secure that the views of the parish and parents are canvassed before decisions are reached.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I rise with some diffidence, because I have had more than my fair share of time in the House this week.
I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) because I live about two miles from the Kirklington school and about three miles from the Wath school. Indeed, a child who lives in my house attends the Kirklington school. I therefore have close knowledge of the area. I join my right hon. Friend in protesting on this issue and I endorse everything he said.
I am appalled at the decision and attitude of the diocesan education committee, which seems to display a sort of feudal arrogance which one is surprised to find receiving any support from the party opposite. This must be one's view if one reads the current Education Bill which is now in Committee upstairs, and which deals with the comprehensive reorganisation of secondary schools. Clause 2(3)(b) of that Measure says:
…at such stage in the preparation by a local education authority of any such plan and in such manner as the authority consider appropriate in the circumstances or as the Secretary of State may direct, the authority shall convey information about the measures proposed to be embodied in the plan to parents of pupils who in the opinion of the authority would be affected by the execution of those measures.
The Government there set down a proposition to do exactly what, in the case raised by my right hon. Friend, has not been done. Further, an Amendment to that Bill which stands in the name of the Secretary of State proposes to add to the words I have quoted:
…and shall consider any representations relating to those measures which may be made to the authority by parents of such pupils".
If the Government condone what has been happening in the case raised by

my right hon. Friend, then they are going exactly against their proposals in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, this amalgamation is totally at odds with the anthropological state of the area. The district of Burneston is entirely separate from Wath and Kirklington from the communications' point of view.
I support my right hon. Friend in protesting at the long journeys that children will be obliged to undertake to and from school. My constituency is even more scattered from the most part than this area of my right hon. Friend's constituency. However, I have not yet had a case of a school closure which would involve so much travelling. I endorse what my right hon. Friend suggested as a compromise, about the need for a nursery school at Wath or Kirklington for very young children in this part of Yorkshire. It would mean that, instead of having to use two buses to take the children to and from school reasonably, one bus would do and virtually no new facilities would be required as the school would already be there.
The situation is extremely unsettling to the teachers at present teaching in these two schools. It is very unfortunate that they should not know what is happening and that the local parents should be as upset as they are by the situation. I hope that the right hon. Lady will have another look at it.

1.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) began his speech by referring to the old primary schools in the North Riding. As he knows, I have met a deputation from the North Riding County Council. I admit that, like other rural areas, the North Riding has more than its share of old schools. It has been said that 90 of them are over 100 years old. I am only sorry that previous Governments have not managed to replace some of them.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in the special £15 million programme for replacing old schools which is to be announced in the next few days, we are including three in the North Riding: the Strensall Primary School, the Le Cateau Primary School at Catterick Camp, and Kirklevington Primary School. The cost in


respect of those three schools will be about £200,000, which is a good share of the £15 million available for the country as a whole.
In August, 1969, the Ripon Diocesan Education Committee, with the support of the North Riding local education authority, submitted to my Department a proposal to establish a new Church of England aided primary school for 120 pupils at Burneston to replace the two Church of England controlled schools at Burneston and Kirklington and the Church of England aided school at Wath. The decision of the diocesan education committee to submit this proposal was not taken in haste. Replacement of the unsatisfactory premises of the Wath school had been under consideration since about 1963 and various possible sites were considered in the period up to 1967.
By that time, however, the number of pupils at Wath school had dropped to 34, thereby greatly weakening the case for its replacement on the same site. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the rebuilding of rural schools, especially those which have been in existence for 100 years, we cannot possibly say in 1970 that the position is exactly the same as it was in 1870. There will have to be some amalgamations, and possibly schools will be built on different sites.

Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the number is now 41 and not 34?

Miss Bacon: My information is that at the time that the proposal was considered the number was 34. Nevertheless, it is a difference of seven only.
The diocesan education committee decided that, in view of this, it must broaden its consideration and try to find the best educational solution for the area as a whole. After discussions with the local education authority, which must be brought in—it is not simply a decision of the diocesan authorities—the diocesan authorities formed the view that the educational needs of the area could best be met by the provision of a single aided school at Burneston to replace the three existing schools.
I am informed—and here there seems to be some discrepancy with what the right hon. Gentleman said—that local opinion was canvassed at meetings arranged by

the local education authority with the school managers and parents in the three villages. I understand that at Burneston there was unanimous support for the proposal. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would say that that was to be expected.
At Kirklington, the idea of a single school appeared acceptable, although there was regret at the prospect of losing the village school and a suggestion that the new school should be located at Kirklington. At Wath, there was some, but by not means unanimous, opposition.
After considering the results of these meetings, the diocesan education committee decided to go ahead with a formal submission of its proposal to my Department. At the same time, it published public notices of the proposal, which it is required to do by Section 13(3) of the Education Act, 1944, to give those affected the opportunity to submit objections to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. A substantial number of objections were made to my right hon. Friend, including two petitions signed respectively by 59 residents in the Kirklington and Howgrave areas and 72 residents in the Wath and Melmerby areas. In addition, objections were made by 14 individuals and by the managers of Wath Church of England school, and representations were received from the Wath Rural District Council and the district committee of the National Union of Agricultural Workers as well as from the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton.
When I realised that the right hon. Gentleman and my good friend, Mr. Brocklebank, were in agreement on this matter, I looked at it even more carefully. The statutory period of two months within which objections may be made expired at the end of October last. All the points advanced by the objectors were carefully considered, together with the local education authority's comments upon them. After a very full study of the arguments for and against the proposal, we concluded that the case made out by the objectors was not sufficiently strong to justify the withholding of approval from a proposal which seemed to be sound both educationally and economically. My right hon. Friend accordingly approved the diocesan education committee's proposal under Section 13(4) of the 1944 Act on 9th March.
The promoters' case—that is, the case of the diocesan authorities—for their proposal is essentially an educational one. Although everyone respects the traditions and past achievements of small rural schools, the developments of recent years in primary education—the richer curriculum and more varied teaching methods—have made it increasingly difficult for them, with their unavoidably wide age range in each class, to operate as viable educational units in the circumstances of today.
A larger school of, say, between 100 and 150 juniors and infants makes possible a better deployment of teachers and can afford its pupils the benefits of a wider range of curriculum, activities and resources and, if it is a new purpose-built school, of modern facilities for teaching. The children also benefit from meeting more children of their own age groups and—this is important, also—the teachers are not isolated from their professional colleagues.
The diocesan education committee was of the opinion that its proposal would afford all these advantages while, at the same time, satisfying the important conditions that the new school would remain essentially rural in character, serving a group of communities of a similar kind, and that the travelling involved would not impose undue strains on the children.
The objectors' arguments against the proposal centred upon the loss to the village communities that would result from the closure of their schools, the burden of the daily travelling that would be imposed on the children now attending the Wath and Kirklington schools, the unsatisfactory nature of the transport arrangements proposed and the difficulty of establishing and maintaining parent-teacher contact at a more distant school.
It was suggested that there were enough children of primary age in the area to support two schools of viable size, one of which might serve Burneston, and the other the villages of Kirklington, How-grave, Wath, Melmerby and, possibly, Hutton Conyers. It was also suggested that if the area was to be served by a single school Burneston was an unsuitable location.
We went very carefully into all the arguments put forward by the objectors,

and we sought the local education authority's comments on each of them. As regards distances and travelling times, the objectors, as the right hon. Gentleman has done today, quoted a variety of figures, one or two of which suggested that for some children the journey to school at Burneston might take as much as an hour in each direction. The local education authority assured me that the maximum distance involved from Melmerby to Burneston was just under seven miles. I know this area, too, and it seems to me that to go seven miles in an hour is rather slow going. The maximum distance is just under seven miles and I am assured that a special bus will be provided to take children from the other villages to Burneston, the full journey from Melmerby to Burneston taking 20 minutes.
The bus will be timed to arrive at Burneston a few minutes before the beginning of school, so that there is no question of the children being subjected to an unduly long school day. Indeed, Melmerby children who now have to walk about a mile to school at Wath are likely, if anything, to have a rather shorter and less tiring school day than at present, because instead of walking a mile in very bad weather they will do the journey by bus, and, while it may be a longer distance, it will be a shorter and less unpleasant journey for them.
Some of the objectors were concerned that the transport provided would be shared by older, secondary school pupils. I have inquired about this, and I am assured by the local education authority that the bus on both outward and return journeys will be solely for pupils attending the proposed Burneston school and that feeder transport will be provided, if this should prove necessary, for children living off the bus route, which will run from Melmerby to Burneston through Wath, Sutton Howgrave, Kirklington and Carthorpe.
As to the contention that there are enough children of primary age to support two schools of viable size, the position is that in January of this year there were 42 pupils at Burneston, 25 at Kirklington, and 39 at Wath, of whom about half were from Melmerby.
Looking ahead, the local education authority estimates that the number of


pupils at Burneston may rise to a maximum of about 50 to 55 but that no increase can be expected at either Wath or Kirklington.
I am told that at Burneston there is a sewerage and drainage scheme which does not apply to the other two villages, and two separate—

Mr. Turton: Is it not a fact that at Melmerby there is an old Ordnance depot which has been turned into a trading estate, and that light industry will be there and, therefore, many more children?

Miss Bacon: I have inquired about that, too, and I am told by the local education authority that the possible development of the Ordnance depot site for industrial purpose is not expected to lead to residential development there, and that it is anticipated that the population will remain virtually static. I am also told that, of the villages concerned, Burneston is the only one likely to expand significantly, as a drainage system is now being laid down.
Two separate schools catering respectively for some 50 to 55 children, on the one hand, and 60 to 70 children, on the other, could not afford pupils the educational benefits which can be derived from teaching groups with a narrower age range.
It was suggested by some of the objectors that children from the village of Hutton Conyers might attend a school at Wath, thus increasing its numbers to a viable level. Hutton Conyers is nearer to Ripon than to Wath and its children at present attend the primary schools in the nearby village of Sharow in the West Riding. The North Riding local education authority does not propose to change these arrangements, and it seems reasonable that the Hutton Conyers children should continue to attend the Sharow school, which is clearly convenient to them.
As to the most suitable location for a single school, it is true that Burneston is the northernmost of the villages concerned, but it has the largest primary school population, and a school located there offers the simplest and most economical transport arrangements. A new school more centrally situated—at Kirkington, for example—would substantially

increase the total number of pupils using transport without significantly reducing travelling time for the children from Melmerby and Wath.
Finally, there is the objectors' point that the proposal would make it more difficult for parents to have contact with their children's school and teachers. I have considerable sympathy with this argument which, in my view, is the most cogent of all that have been put forward by those who oppose the proposal, but I am sure that, given co-operation and good will, this difficulty can be overcome, and that it would have been wrong to have rejected, on this ground, a proposal which was otherwise sound and calculated to provide a better primary education for the children of all the villages.
I have been able to deal only with the main arguments advanced against the diocesan education committee's proposal, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we examined with equal care all the other points which were mentioned by objectors. It would be quite wrong to think that this is a case of the diocesan education committee and the local education authority imposing their solution without regard to the merits of the objections put forward.
Those who oppose the proposals have had full opportunity to state their case against it, first, as I am informed, at the public meetings arranged by the promoters and the local education authority last spring, and, later, by making their objections to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All these objections received the closest consideration, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that approval of the proposal under Section 13 (4) of the 1944 Act would not have been given had we not been fully satisfied that the proposal was educationally sound and would impose no undue strain upon the children.
I sympathise with the feelings of the residents of Wath and Kirklington, and I can understand the regret with which they view the proposed closure of schools which have served them so well for many years. I hope that, when the new school is established, they will give it their full support, and the opportunity to demonstrate the educational advantages which it can offer to their children.
The proposal has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that there should be a nursery school. I take it that they mean an infants' school for children from 5 to 7, for a nursery school is for children under 5. An infants school would make the units very much smaller and would make the primary school much smaller, but this is a new proposal which has not been put forward to me officially. My immediate reaction, as I say, is that it would make the units perhaps much smaller, but the proposal, if it were officially made, would have to come from the diocesan authorities.
We have given permission under Section 13(4) which we could not withdraw. If the education authorities wish not to proceed with this proposal, that is entirely up to them. I want to make it clear that it is not something which we have imposed upon them. We have acceded to the request which has come to us, and we have examined the proposal and the objections. We have had to weigh one against the other and we came to the conclusion that we would give them permission to go ahead if they wished to do so.

Mr. Turton: Could the right hon. Lady make this clear? If the school managers were to persuade the diocesan education committee to amend its proposals so that the very smallest children from Kirklington and Wath could continue to have their education in the school, would she be ready to reconsider the matter?

Miss Bacon: I do not want to build up the right hon. Gentleman's hopes. All I am saying is that we have not received this officially. Anything that we receive officially we consider with the greatest possible care. This is an entirely new proposal and my immediate reaction is that it would make the units much smaller, not only the infant school units, but the primary school units at Burneston.

JANICE GAMBLE

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The case of Janice Gamble is a sad and difficult one. Although I am greatly obliged to Mr. Speaker for selecting it for debate today, I only raise the subject with the greatest possible reluctance, because I feel that I have no alternative. I have no wish to be unfair. I recognise that all those who have been involved in this case have tried in their several ways to be helpful. As it is often a target for criticism, I also pay a tribute to the Press, which has been equally sympathetic. The result, however, has been that this case has brought considerable suffering to a very sensitive child.
Janice Gamble has no overt physical handicap. She is a very happy, pleasant and delightful child. But she has a congenital heart defect which is permanent and untreatable. The most that the specialists can say is that she will get a little better as she grows older. Her condition is such that although she is otherwise perfectly normal she easily becomes breathless. In particular she is unable to climb stairs except slowly unless she is assisted. Janice is the only child of Mr. and Mrs. Gamble, who, seven years ago, bought a house on the Seaburn Dene Estate, in my constituency. They bought this house on a mortgage at considerable sacrifice, which is illustrated by the fact that whilst they have a garage they have no car.
The sole reason was that the house was two or three minutes away from Monk-wearmouth School, which is a grammar school of recognised excellence. It is in new buildings which form the first phase of a comprehensive school. Mr. and Mrs. Gamble wanted to do their best to help Janice and to see that she had an opportunity of attending this school and qualify for a sedentary occupation, thus safeguarding her future.
In 1965, Janice went to Fulwell Junior School which is a two-storey building. Her mother wheeled her to school and back on a light, collapsible wheelchair, but while she was there the staff and pupils took over and were responsible for her. She was happy and popular at school and it is agreed by everyone that she was fully capable of dealing with the school curriculum. In the last school


report she is described as "a popular member of the class who integrated well with group activities". She could not, for example, take part in sports, but was associated with them by acting as a timekeeper. She went to all the school outings and I am told that where the wheelchair could not go her fellow pupils carried her.
At present, Janice is a very active member of the Girls' Brigade, a leader of the junior brigade which meets in the local church hall. This is a two-storey building and it involves tackling stairs. At her junior school, Janice, like the other children came under the shadow of the 11-plus. It is particularly ironical that at the moment one of the lively controversies in Sunderland is the question of parents' choice.
No doubt her mother was more anxious and worried than most parents and she called to see the director of education and asked him about Janice, whether she would go to the Monkwearmouth School. The director of education told her, "I do not see why not. Nothing will stop her going to Monkwearmouth School if she has the ability". To be fair, the director now says that he cannot remember Mrs. gamble calling, but adds that she may well have done so.
I do not find this surprising. The director is a sympathetic official, who is not remote. He is easily accessible to parents and I would concede that he probably did not accord the same significance to what he told Mrs. Gamble as did Mrs. Gamble.
Happily, the letter arrived telling her parents that Janice has been awarded "a selective school place at Monkwearmouth School". I have no reason to doubt that this was the happiest day in the lives of the Gamble family. It was not only a happy day for Mr. and Mrs. Gamble and Janice, but for the headmaster, staff and children at Fulwell Junior School, who were equally delighted. The headmaster has told me so. The children cheered Janice when she came into the class. The doctors too were delighted that she was going to Monkwearmouth School. What is significant is that the staff at the junior school who had the experience of Janice at

school and the doctors who had the medical knowledge of her condition never for a moment thought that Janice would be unable to manage at Monkwearmouth.
Undoubtedly, there would be difficulties. Monkwearmouth School is a four-storey building and there is no lift. The curriculum involves lesson changes which, in turn, involve moving from floor to floor. I recognise that as Janice grows older she will be heavier, but, on the other hand, I should have thought that as she grows older she will become steadier and more able to look after herself. The difficulties that might arise at Monkwearmouth School became apparent because in July, when the parents of new pupils were invited to visit the school, Mrs. Gamble did so, taking Janice with her in the collapsible wheelchair.
She saw the deputy head who was no doubt surprised. There is equally no doubt that the deputy head was very sympathetic but said that she would have to have a word with the headmaster. She telephoned the headmaster. Mrs. Gamble did not see the headmaster and Mr. and Mrs. Gamble failed to obtain an interview with him. A few days later there was an oven afternoon for the parents at the school and Mr. and Mrs. Gamble again sought an interview, unsuccessfully. At the general meeting of parents they tackled the headmaster, who said that "the stairs were heavy".
There may be some confusion about the visits to the school, but it is clear that the deputy head showed Mrs. Gamble round the school; that a sixth former and Mrs. Gamble carried Janice upstairs; that Janice walked downstairs, and that Mrs. Gamble was unable to obtain an interview with the headmaster. It is clear that Mrs. Gamble made suggestions about what provision should be made for Janice and that these subsequently were alleged to be exacting. I regard this as completely irrelevant. What we are concerned about is what provision could sensibly be made if Janice attended the school and what risks might be involved.
The consequence was that a second letter came saying that Janice had not a place. This caused as great distress as the earlier letter had caused happiness.


The whole world of Mr. and Mrs. Gamble collapsed. They saw the director and deputy director, who were sympathetic. It was explained to them that the headmaster had expressed himself unwilling to accept responsibility for allowing children to carry Janice upstairs, since this involved unwarranted risks. He also expressed the opinion that these risks were too great even for an experimental period. The director was sympathetic, but he felt himself bound by the opinion expressed by the headmaster. All sorts of alternative suggestions were made, some of which, to be fair, involved considerable expense.
In August, the education committee was informed and fully discussed the case. The position was that it agreed that Janice had a selective place. It was its view that the premises available in Sunderland were unsuitable and inquiries made with the neighbouring authorities had proved fruitless. It tried every single-storey grammer school in the area, but there was not a single vacancy. It was willing, if Mr. and Mrs. Gamble agreed, to send Janice to a residential grammar school which would cater for her physical handicap and if she did not agree they would send her to the Fulwell Secondary Modern Grammar School for Girls, a single-storey building.
To complete this account of the events, on 5th September, notwithstanding the report I have given of the education committee, the vice-chairman of that committee publicly stated
This is the first time I have heard about it. I will make inquiries into the case.
A week later it was publicly stated that a spokesman of the local education authority had said:
A decision has been made … It is now up to the Secretary of State to intercede if he feels it necessary".
It was at that stage that Mr. Gamble wrote to me. He said:
My wife and I want something done as soon as possible for our daughter Janice. We feel she is on trial. The only offence she has committed is to pass her 11-plus exam, and still she is not at school. Janice has a heart complaint, but up to now she has managed to go to school like any other child, my wife taking her in the chair, but once in school she has been treated like everyone else. She has not lost any schooling whatever through illness.

Then Mr. Gamble goes on to relate the events to which I have already referred.
I then took up the case with the Secretary of State, and in October I received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I thought it proper to make further representations, and in November I received a further reply. Since both these letters were marked "In confidence", I cannot refer to them, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that I have fairly represented the facts and it was thought that these facts rightly caused concern. I was surprised to find that, before I received the second letter in November, a formal notice of school attendance under Section 37 of the Education Act had been made on Mr. Gamble. I was surprised at that because there had been no reference to it in the correspondence with me.
During the Christmas holidays I again attended to this case and made inquiries. On 5th January I took up the matter again, and on 14th January I was assured that I would get a reply in a week or two. I am still awaiting a reply. For about seven months, therefore, Janice has not been at school and for three months I have been awaiting a reply. During that time nobody concerned in the case, apart from myself, has called to see Mr. and Mrs. Gamble, nor has anybody asked Mr. and Mrs. Gamble to call and see them. All this has happened at a time when there is considerable local interest in the issue about parents' choice.
Throughout this time Janice has gallantly tried to do her best. Children attending the school have brought books and work to her and she has remained surprisingly cheerful. But having frequently visited her home, I feel that this sensitive child has been cruelly treated and is now beginning to be affected by this long anxiety to which she has been subjected.
I am very disturbed about moral aspects of this case. There is the question of the governors. In the past, I have always argued about the importance of the governors of schools. From the first word to the last I have heard nothing about the governors. Nobody has thought it fit and proper to inform me as to what they may or may not have said. So far as I know, no action has been taken in respect of Mr. and Mrs. Gamble by the governors.
There is a second matter that concerns me. I have always in the past emphasised the importance of the headmaster in a school, and I recognise that he should be the responsible person in the school. But what disturbs me is that a headmaster with such responsibilities should not exercise them in a completely isolated fashion. He should have seen Mr. and Mrs. Gamble and fully discussed the matter with them.
The third thing that disturbs me relates to the processes by which administrative decisions are taken. It is far too often assumed that a benevolent bureaucracy must take decisions which are in the interests of the individual citizen. It is important if decisions are taken affecting individual citizens that those persons should be persuaded of the rightness of those decisions. I have by now a very good knowledge of Mr. and Mrs. Gamble and I have not found them unreasonable people. I am convinced that, if they were persuaded that there was no alternative but a complete shattering of their dreams for Janice's education, nevertheless, they would accept the situation.
But they are not convinced and I am not convinced. That is why I am pressing this matter upon my right hon. Friend today. What disturbs me is the arrangements at Monkswearmouth School. A four-storey building should have more facilities to cope with difficulties such as these. After all, this is only the first stage of a comprehensive school, and I wonder what will happen on the completion of the second and third stages. There may be a case for the provision of a lift or other arrangement in a school of this kind. That may involve some cost, but that is not an issue here. The local education authority in any event, is prepared to involve itself in considerable cost. However, the family feels that Janice ought to be at home, looked after by her parents.
If we consider Janice Gamble herself, I feel that much more serious consideration should be given to the feasibility of an experimental period. I have not been able to check on this, but I am told that there was a polio victim at this school who is looked after extremely well: a rota of pupils being prepared to attend her. I cannot confirm that, but I was told about it when I was in the town last weekend. I am certain that this sort

of precedent should give those responsible much more confidence in what they might be able to do.
As I have said, I have found the parents reasonable. If it were demonstrated that the risks were unwarranted, I believe that it would be accepted. On the other hand, if this experiment should prove successful, it would be an act of goodness which would have an enormous effect upon the school.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we have a meeting at the school of all those who have been concerned about the case. Let us openly examine and discuss the possibilities and arrive at the best conclusion that we can reach. Let us do it immediately. I would be willing to attend, and I would accept whatever conclusion was reached, as I am sure would the parents. It is necessary to demonstrate and agree about the proper course of action.
I may be wrong, but I believe that it is and has been possible to devise an acceptable experiment without risk to Janice. In the light of that experience, I believe that we could then come to a sensible decision about whether Janice should remain at the school. I say without prejudice that we should have a meeting at the school of all those concerned so that we can earnestly try to reach a conclusion; and it is not unimportant to bear in mind that such a meeting would demonstrate that no trouble is too much for any of us for the sake of this child's future.

2.4 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): My right hon. Friend has described most feelingly the situation of Janice Gamble and her parents. I can only add that I share his sympathy for this unfortunate little girl, both in her physical disability and in her natural frustration in being unable, through no fault of her own, to attend the school of her own and her parents' choice. I fully agree with him that some means must be found to resolve the present deadlock, so that Janice can resume her schooling.
I am certain that the local education authority also holds this same view and will do everything within its powers to provide an acceptable solution. Indeed,


a great deal of thought has been given both by the authority's officers and those of my own Department to possible ways of resolving the deadlock. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend should think that, because he did not receive an immediate answer to his letter to me nothing has been done. I can assure him that, in the telephonic and personal contacts between my Department and the local education authority, a great deal of time and effort has been spent trying to get a solution to this difficult problem.
Both he and I could make long speeches posing the problems and difficulties of this case. What is not so easy is to find a solution that is acceptable to all the parties involved.
For many years, Janice has suffered from an inoperable, physical condition and has become breathless at the slightest exertion. She moves on the level in a wheel chair and needs help from two people to go upstairs. I am told that on most occasions she has to be carried upstairs.
This condition did not cause particular difficulty while she was at Fulwell junior school. This school operates at one level on the first floor, to which Janice was carried up one flight of stairs at the beginning of the morning and afternoon sessions and down at the end of these sessions. It was possible, therefore, with the co-operation of staff and her fellow pupils, for Janice to take full advantage of her educational opportunities. But, Janice is getting older, and the position is becoming a little more difficult. It is one thing for the staff to carry a small child up one flight of stairs. It is an entirely different matter for the staff or the senior pupils to carry an older teenager up three or perhaps four flights.
There was no reason at this earlier stage for the local education authority to consider whether Janice required special education. It was quite clear that she was doing perfectly well where she was and that the educational difficulties caused by her physical condition could be overcome in the school which she was attending. It must be admitted that, unfortunately, although the school health service was well aware of the state of Janice's health, this information was not available to the officers who undertook

selection last summer for grammar school entrance. Janice passed the selection test and was allotted to the Monkwearmouth grammar school.
It was only after the decision was made and conveyed to her parents that attention was drawn to her physical disabilities, and the impossibility of admitting her to a school built on four storeys, without a lift, and with stairs that progressively narrowed in the higher floors.
This failure to convey essential information between branches of the local authority was most unfortunate and has had most unfortunate results. The local education authority accepts that, having selected her for a grammar school place, it should do all in its power to provide her with a grammar school education. The Government, as hon. Members will know, are promoting legislation to put an end to selection at the age of 11. But they accept the authority's view that, so long as a selective system exists, the results of selection should be implemented, so far as is practicable.
The authority throughout has been acting with this end in view, and I must in fairness to it and its officers say that they seem to me to have done their best to resolve the difficulties. I must repudiate any suggestion that it has acted unsympathetically or ungenerously. It has been giving very careful thought to possible solutions, and more recently its officers and mine have consulted at length to see whether any possibilities had been overlooked. This is why my right hon. Friend has not been able to have a final reply to his latest letter.
My right hon. Friend implies that more could have been done to accept Janice at Monkwearmouth school. I am satisfied that the local authority was not acting unreasonably in the attitude that it adopted.
Janice is a very severely disabled little girl, and it is only the fortunate circumstances that the Fulwell Junior School operates on a single floor that has prevented the limitation that her health imposes on her education from becoming a serious issue long ago.
I am informed that the Authority fully support the Headmaster in his view that it would not be practicable for Janice to be educated there, and is not prepared to


take the risk of accident or damage that might ensue.
It is natural that her parents should wish to minimise the extent of her disabilities, but it is not in dispute that she would have to be carried in her wheel chair up and down stairs at times when there is a general movement of pupils between classrooms and between floors. I am sure it is no sign of lack of sympathy to say that this would cause some difficulty.
I have received a letter from the local authority describing the occasion mentioned by my right hon. Friend when Mrs. Gamble took Janice to open day. It states that on the afternoon of 7th July Mrs. Gamble went to the school with her daughter, who was in a wheelchair. Whilst being shown round the school Mrs. Gamble insisted that Janice would need her wheelchair for the long corridors and would have to be carried from floor to floor. As an experiment the deputy head teacher enlisted the aid of a sixth form boy and Mrs. Gamble and between them they manoeuvred the wheelchair to the first floor. The deputy head would not like to repeat the experience. This same procedure would have to be gone through if they wanted to go to another floor.
I have recently considered whether it would be possible for Janice to go to this grammar school and perhaps stay on the ground floor. But the only available rooms on the ground floor are some classrooms, toilets, administration, kitchen and dining room. Indeed, the domestic science, music, geography, chemistry and languages departments are on the second floor, and science, art, craft and music are on the third floor.
As I said, I have considered whether Janice could enter the school but stay on the ground floor. However, it is quite clear that, if we try this solution, Janice would feel out of it because she would not be with her classmates for particular lessons.
Another important point is that if Janice enters this school somebody would have to carry her from floor to floor. I accept that things would be very much better and the whole matter would be solved if the school had a lift. Even if this is structurally possible, it would take time to install, as my right hon. Friend will agree. But, in present circumstances,

somebody would have to carry Janice from floor to floor, and this would involve either teachers or children in the school.

Mr. Willey: I do not think that we should talk about carrying Janice from floor to floor. She needs someone on either side to help her. I make this point, otherwise we have a picture of her being physically lifted. I concede that people would have to take her up stairs.

Miss Bacon: There is a little discrepancy here. I am told that she is severely disabled when going up stairs. The fact remains that she would have to be assisted by either the staff or the pupils of the school.
One important point which the local authority has had to consider, which has not been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, is liability in case of an accident. If there was an accident involving either Janice or other pupils in the school the local authority would be liable for damages. That is a matter on which I have taken legal advice.
The authority has also explored a range of alternatives to see whether any other school than the Fulwell Secondary Modern School, can be offered, where G.C.E. courses are available though not the full range of grammar school education. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Gamble are not prepared to allow Janice to go to Fulwell School.
But all these alternatives have fallen down for one reason or another. The local authority has looked for many miles around. The problem is either that the building is unsatisfactory or the courses are not of a kind acceptable to Mr. and Mrs. Gamble. Home tuition has also been considered, but it is obvious that it would be far from effective as a means of providing an all round education.
Residential special schools in neighbouring authority areas has been suggested, but Mr. and Mrs. Gamble have not been willing to send Janice away from home, apart from the fact that none of these schools could offer the full range of grammar school education. I do not blame Mr. and Mrs. Gamble in any way for wanting to keep Janice at home.
We are left, therefore, with a very limited range of possibilities. There is the Monkwearmouth School with all the difficulties, to which I do not see a solution. On the other hand, there is the


Fulwell Secondary Modern School which, as I have already pointed out in correspondence with my right hon. Friend, does not seem an unreasonable offer. However, it is not satisfactory to Mr. and Mrs. Gamble.
The only effective alternative would be the one school for physically handicapped children, which provides a full grammar school education. This is the Florence Treloar School at Alton, Hampshire. The local education authority is willing to negotiate for a vacancy, and, if successful, to pay the fees. There is no question of lack of generosity in its action. At the same time I appreciate that it would be a great wrench to Mr. and Mrs. Gamble to allow Janice to go so far from home, and I certainly would not wish to encourage them to accept this suggestion against their own judgment.
All I can say is that it appears to me the only workable alternative to Fulwell Secondary Modern School, and the only way in which to arrange for Janice to attend a Grammar School other than the Monkwearmouth school.
I am sorry to have had to conclude by posing these two alternatives. I should be prepared to consider any possibilities which have not already been suggested, but I doubt whether there are any. In one way or another this case, which has already dragged on far too long, must be resolved. I would propose, therefore, to seek the views of Mr. and Mrs. Gamble on these alternatives. If they are unwilling to accept any of them, we shall have to look at the Fulwell Secondary Modern School where Janice would at least be able to resume her schooling, which has so long been disrupted.
When I learned that my right hon. Friend was to raise this matter in the House today, I was on the point of sending a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Gamble. They had suggested that they could come to meet officers of my Department to consider the alternatives. I should be happy for Mr. and Mrs. Gamble to do this if they wish, but without holding out any hope of Janice being able to go to Monkwearmouth School unless some solution could be found acceptable to both the local authority and the school. The difficulty is that Monkwearmouth is the only school which will be considered by the parents, and that is the one school which

the local authority, for the reasons I have outlined, feels that it is impossible for her to attend.
Like my right hon. Friend, I sympathise very much with Janice and her parents. I can see also the difficulties of the local education authority and the school in having to negotiate Janice and her wheelchair in this four-storey building. As I have said, there are difficult legal problems about who is responsible if there is an accident, but we shall go on to see what we can do.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, where a child is out of school for a long time, the Secretary of State is eventually called upon to name the school to which the child shall go. In doing this we have to consider whether or not the local authority has been unreasonable in the offers which have been made. In this case it is difficult to say that the local authority has been unreasonable. I am prepared to enable Mr. and Mrs. Gamble to discuss this with my officers and to see my right hon. Friend, but I do not hold out any hope that there is a simple solution to Janice attending the Monkwearmouth school.

ADVERTISERS (ELECTORAL REGISTERS)

2.20 p.m.

Mr. James Dickens: In a parliamentary democracy the electoral register is a public document of crucial significance which we take particular care in compiling. Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1969, says:
It shall be the general duty of a registration officer to prepare and publish registers of electors in conformity with the Representation of the People Act 1949, and (without prejudice to any specific requirement of the Act or regulations under it) to take reasonable steps to obtain information required by him for the purpose.
In pursuance of that obligation, the electoral registration officer and his staff each year seek to obtain information from electors for the preparation of the register. Householders are invited to complete Form A, which is sent through the post or distributed by the staff of the local electoral registration officer. Thus, persons are asked to enter, on 10th October, 1969, particulars regarding every British


subject—and for this purpose Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland are included—who are over 18, or who will be 18 by 16th February, 1970, or who will be 18 after 16th February, 1970, but on or before 15th February 1971. That is the particular requirement for the current year.
Form A is divided into four parts. The person completing the form is required to give in Part I the full address of the premises. He is required in Part II to give the surname and the full Christian names of all residents eligible to be included in the form. He is also required to give particulars about the age of persons, whether they are over 18 or will be 18 by 16th February in a given year, or whether they are 18 after 16th February in a given year and before 15th February in the immediately following year.
The form also requires particulars of occupiers if they are under 21 or over 60, for the purpose of jury service, and also information about merchant seamen.
Part III concerns persons in separately occupied parts of the house. Finally, the person completing the return has to make an accurate return under penalty of a fine of up to £50 for making an incorrect return or for making no return.
As I say, we take great care in the compilation of the register, and it costs the taxpayer a considerable sum. In the London Borough of Lewisham, with four parliamentary constituencies involved, the cost of compiling the 1970 register was £16,308, and that figure included all fees, staff payments and printing charges. If the cost for Lewisham can be taken broadly as an average for a parliamentary constituency of roughly £4,000, this means that the cost to the taxpayer of compiling the electoral register is about £2½ million a year.
The register is compiled on 10th October each year from 16th February in one year to 15th February in the immediately succeeding year. The citizen provides the information in good faith because he expects that the information will be used only to enable him and members of his household to exercise their righ to the franchise, their right to vote. No one tells him then, or at any other stage, that the information may be passed on to a wide variety of other

persons, frequently for private commercial gain.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 12th February last how many registers were sold in the country. The reply was that the number of copies sold varied between constituencies. The total receipts from the sale of registers in the financial year 1968–69, the latest period for which figures were available, were equivalent to an average sale of 34 copies per constituency. This means that about 20,000 copies of the electoral registers are sold every year.
The requirements relating to the electoral registration officer are set out in Statutory Instrument No. 904 of 1969, the Representation of the People Regulations, 1969. Free copies of the register are made available in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 21, which is as follows:
The registration officer shall on request supply without fee—
(a) four copies of the register for the constituency (which may be printed on one side only) and four copies of Lists B and C of the electors lists therefore, or, in the case of electors lists to which Regulation 10(5) applies, of the draft register therefor, so long as the lists are kept published, to any person who satisfies the registration officer that he requires them for use in connection with his own or some other person's prospective candidature at a parliamentary election for that constituency:
Provided that not more than one person in respect of the same candidature shall be so supplied;
Two copies of the register for the constituency are supplied free of charge to each candidate in the parliamentary election for the constituency or to the election agent.
Under Regulation 21(c) one copy of the register of any electoral area is supplied to each candidate in a local government election for that area or his election agent. These seem to be the requirements, broadly speaking, of party political organisations.
Regulation 22 deals with the sale of the register, as follows:
The registration officer shall supply to any person copies of any part or parts of the register in force or of any electors lists therefor so long as there are sufficient copies available allowing for the number which may be required for the purposes of any election (including the purposes of Regulation 21) on payment—



(a) in the case of a person who has been supplied in pursuance of Regulation 21 with a copy of the register or the electors lists or who is a returning officer or a local authority, of a fee at the rate of one shilling for each one thousand or part of one thousand names in such copies.
(b) in the case of any other person, of a fee at the rate of five shillings for each one thousand (or part of one thousand) names in such copy."

What is the effect of this? Again, I take my example from the London Borough of Lewisham, of which I have the honour to represent an important part in this House. In recent years sales of the register to persons in the categories mentioned in Regulation 22 have shown a steep upward trend. In 1965, 13 whole registers were sold and 46 parts of registers—a total of 59. By 1969 the figures had risen to 35 whole registers and 102 parts of registers: a total of 137.
The breakdown of those to whom these registers were sold is very revealing. Copies were sold to various statutory bodies and Government offices. In 1969, they accounted for 29 whole or part registers. Political parties bought an additional two part-registers. The Churches bought 12 part-registers, indicating some initiative on the part of local vicars.
But the most interesting figures are those concerning persons buying the registers for commercial purposes. In 1965, this group bought 10 whole registers and 30 part-registers. In 1969, they bought 15 whole registers and 79 part-registers. I am told by the town clerk, wearing his other hat as the electoral registration officer, that the persons concerned were football pools promoters, commercial businesses and a variety of clubs and societies.
In recent months I have received a growing volume of strong complaints from my constituents who find that they are being circulated in a completely unsolicited and indiscriminate way with a variety of advertising material offering products and services of all types.
This has become a matter of national interest. Hon. Members in various parts of the country have received complaints from constituents about the circulation of a number of books dealing with sex. I make no comment about their content, but I draw attention to the fact that

constituents who have written to me have drawn my attention to the extreme distress that this sort of advertising has caused.
In some cases persons who have recently suffered the loss of a husband or wife have received literature about these books. In other cases it has caused a certain amount of marital discord, where relations were previously not satisfactory—and reference has already been made in the House to old-age pensioners living in blocks of flats being inundated with this so-called literature.
That, in itself, might be regarded as bad enough, but the position has recently taken a decisive turn for the worse. With the lowering of the voting age to 18, and with the date of birth being given against the names of the 18-year-olds on the register, it is quite easy for persons who wish to use the registers for the purpose of commercial advertising to identify what, for many of them, is an extremely attractive market.
Persons of 18 years of age do not normally have family responsibilities and have, fortunately—increasingly under this Government—a high and rising level of money wages. At that age they are very susceptible to approaches made through the post offering them a wide range of goods and services. Since 15th February, in my constituency persons have received literature congratulating them on attaining the age of 18 with an accompanying invitation for them to take out accounts with gambling clubs or similar institutions. Other hon. Members who saw that I was raising this matter this afternoon have told me that in their constituencies young persons of 18 are being sent similar letters and are being encouraged to open hire-purchase or credit accounts for various goods.
In my submission this is at once a gross abuse of the electoral register and a serious intrusion into the privacy of the person. When I raised this matter on 18th December last, at Question Time, I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
he will introduce amending legislation prohibiting the sale of the electoral register for commercial advertising.
My hon. Friend replied:
I appreciate that this is a matter for legitimate public concern, but I do not think that


legislation is the right remedy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 371–2.]
Experience in the intervening months has shown me that we are on the verge of an explosion in the use of the register for commercial exploitation. It is self-evident that with this large captive market of young people who axe easily identifiable we shall find, in the months ahead, a steady and steep upward movement in the number of people using the register for these purposes.
I submit that the time for action is now, as the evidence is beginning to accumulate. I urge my hon. Friend to announce that the Government will take action forthwith, by introducing legislation, to amend especially Regulation 22 of S.I. 904 of 1969—to confine the sale of the electoral register either to public bodies, or, in the case of additional copies, to political or Church organisations, and to place an absolute prohibition upon the sale of the register to any other persons—especially to those who want to use it for private gain.
It may be objected that as the register is a public document it must be readily available. I entirely accept that. My suggestion would in no way diminish the rôle of the register in this respect. It would continue to be freely available for inspection at town halls, post offices, public libraries and other public buildings. Again, it may be said that a person could go to such a public building and use the register for the purposes for which some persons are using it now, namely, commercial advertising. I submit that that would be an exceedingly laborious process, in contrast with the extreme ease, convenience and cheapness of using the register as it is currently being used.
Again, I cite the example of Lewisham in this respect.
The cost of buying the register for four parliamentary constituencies in a major London borough is approximately £50. This is the increased price, after 15th February. Before then it was £12 10s.—for 203,000 names and addresses. It is obviously an extremely cheap and effective way to carry out market research. This practice has to cease. If it does not come to an early end we shall be faced with the prospect, in October of this year, of householders refusing to complete Form A, saying to the electoral registra-

tion officer that they have given such information in good faith previously, and that no one had told them it would be sold off to anyone for whatever purpose.
They will say that the consequence of this in some cases has been the intrusion of literature on sexual matters which has caused distress, that there have been invitations sent to younger members of the household to open gambling accounts. This may have led to debts which could have been avoided. Such householders will point out that all this information was provided without their knowledge or consent.
This House must protect the rights of the citizen. At a time when we should be seeking to do our utmost to raise the standing of parliamentary democracy, to find one of its basic instruments being employed in such a way approaches a contempt of the House and its functions in the eyes of many electors. Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will not consider this to be a matter which should be referred solely to the Committee on Privacy which will be sitting under Mr. Younger to consider some of the implications on the Bill dealing with privacy, introduced into the House on 23rd January. I hope that we can take much more positive action on this intrusion of privacy than that.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), addressing the House either nostalgically or prophetically from the Opposition Front Bench, wish to speak on this subject?

Mr. Lubbock: Yes. I feel that a contribution from the Opposition is called for on this subject and that as there is no other hon. Member in the Chamber representing the Opposition it is incumbent upon me to reply to the important subject which has been raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens). I have taken an interest in this subject in my capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group, which is much concerned with the subject of privacy and which has had the matter under consideration on a number of occasions.
I confess that so far we have not looked into the point raised by the hon. Member, but when I saw that he had put it down for discussion I took the opportunity of having a word with him. What he has said is extremely important, deserving the close attention of the House. It surprises me that there has not been more interest taken by the Opposition in such an important subject.
The hon. Gentleman has explained clearly the reasons why the House should take a fresh look at the problem. In particular, he has referred to young voters appearing on the register for the first time. I take this point very seriously, having been a member, Mr. Speaker, of your Conference on Electoral Reform, when we evolved the rather ingenious solution, as I thought, of putting the birthdays of young persons due to reach the age of 18 during the currency of the register against their names. That meant that we did not have the problem of young persons reaching the age of majority but not being entitled to vote because they had to be divided into two halves of the year.
We have enabled young persons to exercise their right to the vote the minute they reach the age of majority, but this involves placing the date of birth on the register, enabling everyone to know the age of that person. Commercial organisations have exploited this new information. It is a sizeable market of young persons with high purchasing power who may be interested and misled into taking out hire-purchase agreements, going in for football pools and various other matters. This has created a new situation. While we, as adults, have always been capable of looking after ourselves, or we hope we have, young persons, who are below the age of majority and appear on the register because they are due to reach the age of 18 during the currency of the register, are not so easily able to look after themselves.
The Latey Committee decided that it was appropriate for the House to legislate for an age of majority for all purposes such as contracts, entering into marriage, and so on, but it did not decide that young persons only 16 years and 8 months of age, and now appearing on the register because they will be due to reach their 18th birthday during the currency

of the register, are capable of making these decisions for themselves. Those young persons are just as vulnerable to the receipt of these circulars as the persons deemed to be of the age of majority.
I hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously. What concerns me more than anything is the distribution of sexual literature by various publishers. I make no apology for naming some. There is the Running Man Press. I say no more about that, because I understand it is due to be prosecuted, not under the Trade Descriptions Act, as has been suggested to me by one hon. Member who said that its circular is very misleading when compared with the book subsequently published.
The Julian Press has undertaken very widespread distribution among electors, no doubt using the electoral roll in the manner described by the hon. Gentleman. This cannot be proved and while the Minister may have some doubts, it must be obvious that a publisher wishing to attract large numbers of people can make use of the register in this way.
I can see no other way in which the Julian Press and similar organisations can have obtained these names. Certainly, this is the impression given to me by my constituents, many of whom have complained because they find these circulars offensive. I accept that, as the Attorney-General has explained, these circulars do not in all cases contravene the Obscene Publications Acts and that, therefore, the publishers cannot be prosecuted under those Acts. At the same time, the recipients find them extremely offensive. I do not believe that I am exaggerating here. Old people receive these circulars in an indiscriminate manner as do such people as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, those who have been recently separated or divorced. There is no doubt, disregarding whether these circulars are within the law, that they cause widespread and grave offence.
At the time that this matter was first drawn to my attention, I wrote to the Home Secretary asking whether he would consider an amendment to the Obscene Publications Acts to provide that the circulars could be made legal. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not distinguish between circulars and any other kind of material, and that it was


impossible from a legal and statutory point of view to do as I requested.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the issue we are debating. He must link what he is saying with the debate, which is about the sale of electoral registers. I am not without sympathy for what he is saying.

Mr. Lubbock: This is why I am suggesting that the method which the hon. Gentleman has suggested to the House is a much better way of dealing with the problem.
I shall not go back over old ground, and I have been convinced by what the Attorney-General and Home Secretary have said on the legal question of the circulars, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, West has proposed a much simpler solution, that we simply ban the sale of these registers to commercial organisations. They would not then so easily be able to obtain the names of persons to whom the offending literature might be distributed. They could still go to the telephone directory of course, but that would not always be complete; and it certainly would not enable them to fasten like leeches on the young people who are very much the victims of this conduct.
I urge the Under-Secretary of State to do as is suggested and not refer this matter to the Committee on Privacy. I have no doubt that that committee has a useful rôle to play and that, under Mr. Younger's chairmanship, it will come up with suggestions which will be treated seriously by the House and be the subject of future legislation. The present problem, however, is more urgent. We already have the first of the new-style registers containing the names of young people. The commercial organisations, publishers in particular, have started to cotton on to it, and I have no doubt that there will be an even bigger flood of complaints during 1970–71 than we have had so far.
We have the opportunity now to take a first step. If the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that legislation, or a Statutory Instrument, will be introduced along the lines proposed, a great blow will have been struck for

privacy—on which I am extremely concerned—and he will avoid the great deal of trouble which will otherwise arise from both sides of the House—this is entirely a non-party matter—when the next register comes to be published. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to tell us that we shall have legislation in the near future.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak): I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), and congratulate him on the able way in which he argued his case. I endorse, also, what has been said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). As a fellow member of the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group, I regard what is now happening as a serious invasion of privacy.
I, along with many other hon. Members, have received representations from aggrieved and angry constituents, not so much about the circulars from such publishers as Running Man Press and the Julian Press, but about the distribution of colourful and persuasive letters addressed to younger voters by various mail order houses.
Here is a typical letter from an aggrieved parent protesting against the sending of material of this kind to her daughter:
The enclosed blurb was addressed to my daughter. She did not contact this mail order company or any other company, so I presume that her address was taken from the new electoral roll. Catalogues,"—
particularly colour catalogues—
are hard to resist by mature people, but to 18-year-olds they are a menace, particularly as it is all on the never-never.
The material sent out—by the Burlington Company, of Oldham—offers the young person a free £2 voucher. She is told that she has
a free opportunity too good to miss: no cost—no obligation, tear off and post today.
That is only one letter, but I have received several such letters from constituents. It seems that this particular company has gone in for an almost blanket circulation throughout The High Peak. The case is well made that this is a serious and widespread intrusion on privacy. There is a growing protest, not only in The High Peak but in Lewisham and elsewhere.
I come now to the question of the cost of this information to those who request it. I was surprised to learn, when I wrote to the Clerk of the Derbyshire County Council, that, following Home Office regulations, the cost of supplying information has gone down, not up. I am told that until this current year the cost of 100 names was 1s., but now, following the new regulation, it is 5s. per 1,000. Thus, there has been a reduction and the commercial interests concerned find it even cheaper to purchase the information which they require.
The clerk has kindly produced for me a list showing the requests made from 1965 to March, 1970, by various interests for information from the register. In the first year, April, 1965, to March, 1966, there were 94 requests. In subsequent years—this bears out what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West—there has been an increase.
I draw attention to some of the organisations seeking this information: British Market Research Bureau, Television Audience Measurement Limited, Little-woods Pools, British Market Research again, National Opinion. Polls, Credit Investigations, Television Audience Measurement Limited again, Market Research Centre, Status Enquiry Bureau, Sheffield Trade Protection Society, Notts and Derbyshire Traders Association, Night Security Services, U.A. Protection of Trade Limited, Mail Advertising Services.
All this suggests that information provided in good faith by electors when they fill in the form, as they are obliged to do by Statute, is being used by what I regard as somewhat dubious commercial interests, such as Littlewoods Pools, an adjunct of the gambling business which I and many others deplore. It is used by Tracing Services and other debt collecting agencies. I am certain that, when constituents give this information, the last thing they suspect is that it will be used by organisations of that kind.
I press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give us certain assurances. I am particularly concerned that information may be given to such inquirers from the absent voters' list, and I should like a comment directly on that.
The cost of compiling the register is considerable. In Derbyshire, it is about

£44,000. I am told that annual receipts vary from year to year, but run between £250 and £300. The principal purpose in compiling the electoral register is to fulfil an electoral requirement, yet it appears that many requests are made for this information, to such an extent that it is becoming an adjunct of—or service to—various commercial interests who are getting it on the cheap.
I am happy to support my hon. Friend's insistence that this information should in future be supplied only to bona fide organisations such as political parties, perhaps charitable organisations and churches, and other categories which are found acceptable by the Home Office.

2.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): For a few minutes, we welcomed the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to the Dispatch Box opposite. For a moment or two, the heady bubbles of Orpington some years ago returned to the political scene, but they have now receded again and we are back to normal order.
I find myself in sympathy with much of what has been said today. As I have said before, I recognise that this is a matter of widespread public concern, particularly the growing practice of pushing through the door unsolicited documents of a sexual nature. This is an offensive practice which has a bearing on the whole subject with which we are dealing today, but it is only one aspect. I do not underrate the feeling both inside and outside the House, but we should not underrate the difficulties of proceeding as my hon. Friend suggests.
The trouble is that no action which the Government could properly take in connection with the electoral register would have the effect which hon. Members on both sides of the House desire. As I have said before—and my hon. Friend quoted a Parliamentary Answer—I do not think that legislation is the right remedy. I welcome this opportunity to expand a little on the reply which I then gave. The electoral register is an essential public document, and there would be no point in it if it were not a public document.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Could the Joint Under-Secretary


of State tell the House whether any reference has been made to the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning some of the literature which has been put through the doors of my constituents and in other parts of the country?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Orpington pre-empted this and explained what had happened. This has been dealt with properly and I should be prepared to go into it in greater detail afterwards. But it has been done.
As I was saying, the electoral register is a public document. It is essential to our democratic system that it should be on public display. This means that it can be copied, and one cannot stand over a man and ask why he is copying names from a public document. The very fact that it is on display means that the details can be ascertained by anyone interested enough to go along to the council offices or to the public library, or the post office, or, as I understand it, in many parts of the country, in the porches of churches where these documents are displayed. In this way certain information which some people would like to keep private is unavoidably made public.
Candidates and their agents need copies of the register, and so do prospective candidates at parliamentary elections. As has been said, all these people get a limited number of copies free and can buy extra copies for 1s. for every 1,000 names. Local authorities can also buy them at this rate for their own purposes. Anyone else has to pay 5s. for every 1,000 names. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) was wrong. The previous fee was 1d. a 100 or 10d. a thousand. It has gone up to 5s. per 1,000. It is worth noting that arrangements for the register being sold to anyone who wants a copy are not new. They go back at least to an Act of Parliament of 1843.
The register is used for a variety of harmless purposes. We can get some idea of the total revenue from the sales. The figure for the last financial year was £46,000, which is equivalent to an average sale of 34 copies of the whole register for each constituency.

Mr. Lubbock: This is a very interesting figure—£46,000 compared with £2½ million which is the cost of preparing the

register. Is this not so minute a sum in comparison that we can afford to forgo it?

Mr. Rees: The figure is £3 million and not £2½ million, although that was a pretty good estimate. It is not the aim to make the register too expensive.
As I was saying, this is equivalent to an average sale of 34 copies for each constituency. The proportion of these sales to advertisers must be quite small, although I accept that it is growing, and the figures given by my hon. Friend illustrate this. Most copies are sold for local purposes; for example, in the last few days I have had complaints from a schoolmaster and from a country parson about the increase in the fee charged for copies of the register, and they stated that they used them for perfectly proper purposes and that they are now having to pay more money for them. I have to take account the perfectly proper use which is made of the register in this sort of case.

Mr. Dickens: Would my hon. Friend tell the House what evidence he has to support his assertion that the sale of the register for private commercial purposes is comparatively small. This seems to be astonishing, particularly in view of the figures I gave from Lewisham which show a very steep upward trend.

Mr. Rees: I agree that the trend for Lewisham is very disturbing, and I say that quite categorically. But for the country as a whole, the sales were not, I understand, high to advertisers, although I expect they are growing and this is an important matter to be taken into account.
That is the background, and this has been going on for 100 years. Only now have people discovered that the register is being used for undersirable purposes. We have had repeated again the all too familiar activities of the notorious Julian Press. My hon. Friend has referred to the activities of credit companies directed at young people. Here I make it clear that the register does not identify all youngsters. It is only those who become 18 during the year when the register is in force, which is a new factor one has to take into account.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: This is a problem which I think will grow in future,


because I am informed by the town clerk that in future the register is to be kept on punch cards and it will be possible for an advertiser to ask for a list of 18-year olds, which can be abstracted from the register straight away.

Mr. Rees: I shall come to that other undesirable aspect. I do not know whether I am sorry or glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned it, because there is a certain amount of advertising involved in such a possibility existing.
If we are to regard these activities as undesirable, what is the remedy? It has been suggested that the register should be provided only to those who get copies free or at the reduced rate. But this would bear hardly on all the local users to whom I have referred. A somewhat different suggestion is that copies should be sold only to political parties and organisations, but this would raise the additional problem of defining a political party. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that during the debate on the Representation of the People Bill when it was before Parliament in 1968, the idea of registering political parties before they could be used on ballot papers was not proceeded with, and one of the reasons for this was the practical problem of defining a party. I understand that it was easier for some than others. Any person or group can say they are a political party—as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) will confirm. Someone could say that he was going to stand in a local election and we would be asking that a local government official should have to make an arbitrary decision as to whether he was going to make the register available or not. I support in full some of what my hon. Friend has said, but the more I look into the problem the more I find there are difficulties.
Even if the sale of copies was restricted in any of these ways, could we ensure that no copies fell into the hands of advertisers? If the register is as valuable to them as it seems to be, we may be creating a black market. It would not make much sense to have a public document with a restricted circulation kept under lock and key to prevent unauthorised disclosure. It does not fit together. We really cannot legislate for a document which must be displayed in

public but which is obtainable by some members of the public and not others. Either a document is public or it is not, and it is in the public interest that the electoral register should remain a public document and that access to it should be unrestricted.
One could take this matter further. It would make the document suspect to some degree if it were public and yet some people were not allowed to get at it.

Mr. Dickens: Mr. Dickens indicated dissent.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it is a public document, and the proposal is that it should be given only to certain people. If it is given only to certain people the next step in my argument is to ask: how can we make sure that it would not be misused?
The next step, I would think, is to suggest that it should be an offence to use the electoral register for commercial advertising or any purposes other than electoral purposes. I am not sure that this would be right in principle, but it is perhaps more practicable than an attempt to restrict the sale of the register. It would raise very great problems of enforcement.
Where would the offence begin and where would it end? Would it be an offence for a copy of the register to be found on commercial premises or in the possession of an advertising agent? What if the man claimed that he was considering standing for election? What about an address list prepared from the register? Once the list was finished and the register destroyed, how could it be proved that the names came from the register? I understand that some electoral registration officers use existing commercial lists which are available to help them compile their public register. To what extent this is done I do not know because these officers are not employees of the Home Office. There are people who compile lists of addresses and have their own canvassers. This deals with only one part, though I accept that it is the most important part, of the question.
Should we let the onus be on the advertiser to show that he had not used the register? Would this not be an unreasonable burden on him? Would it not oblige him to disclose details of his commercial practice every time information was laid against him? Who would lay


the information? So one goes on. What machinery would we have at the Home Office to deal inspectorially with this problem? Therefore, the question of enforcement is really great, having started with much more simple and black and white arguments with which we all agree.
If such a law could be enforced, I doubt whether it would have much effect. True, the register makes it easy for a firm to identify a group of 17 or 18-year-olds, but firms can get the names and addresses of a high proportion of people from telephone or street directories. I do not think many of my hon. Friends have put their minds to the existence of street directories. If the electoral register was not available, the information would still be available in a street directory.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman says that these people would be enabled to identify 17 or 18-year-olds. What, in fact, one is enabled to identify are persons between the ages of 16 years 8 months and 18 years, who I suggest constitute a very vulnerable section of the community.

Mr. Rees: Is it suggested that the ban on the use of directories would extend to other directories as well as to the electoral register? What about the practice of addressing material simply to "The Occupier"? Should that also be banned? I find this equally offensive in the two places where I live, where circulars are addressed to people. I accept that to address material to "The Occupier" is not so precise as addressing it to people of a certain age. But this is not just an isolated problem. We must ascertain whether the system is really being abused and, if so, what the abuse is. People are shocked that the electoral register is used to track down those who have just reached the age of 18. But is this a misuse of the register? Far more important, is it taking an unfair advantage of young people, or is it a natural and obvious consequence of Parliament's action in lowering the age of majority to 18 and saying that someone who has reached 18 is mature enough to vote and to make up his mind whether he takes notice of a piece of payer which has been put in his door.

Mr. Dickens: How will my hon. Friend deal with the position of the citizen who completes the form for in-

clusion on the register, gives all the information in good faith, and then finds out that this has been sold to other people without his knowledge and consent?

Mr. Rees: I will come to that point. I am at the moment addressing myself to the question how one regards the situation of a public document which is used for non-public purposes. In my view, dealing with young people, the most important point is that Parliament has decided that a person aged 18-plus is adult and is able to make up his mind on the issues of the day. My own children are approaching that age. We have decided—rightly or wrongly—that we have to treat persons of that age as adults and that to cosset them is wrong.
I am equally concerned with dirty material coming through letterboxes for people of 25, 26 or 27 years of age as I am about that material being addressed to people of 18 or 19 years of age. That is one question which concerns me far more, although I take the point which has been made about the age being on the register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) referred to the question of banning the sale or the use of the register by advertisers. Much as I appreciate what he has in mind, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. When names and addresses are in a public document, the point is not how they are obtained but how far it is right to use them for a particular purpose. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that the Home Office is concerned about this. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is extremely concerned about the sort of issue involving Julian Press, to which reference was made by the hon. Gentleman as well as by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). This concerns many of us. It is extremely worrying. We are dealing with this now in the context of the electoral register. In our view, such matters as the circulation of unsolicited material of an offensive sort, and of the intrusion on privacy, should be dealt with by the Committee on Privacy, because it is part of a much wider question. It does not arise just on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak referred to computer tapes.


It is a fact that computer tapes are used for printing the electoral register. The use of these tapes would greatly facilitate the printing of labels for sending out advertising matter. They would be enormously helpful to anyone with access to a computer. Probably only the larger firms are in a position to use them as yet, but, as time goes on, more local authorities will have computer installations and I have no doubt that in some areas the political parties will be interested in obtaining tapes for sending out political material. We have not yet decided what should be the policy for the sale of these tapes. They are not copies of the register within the meaning of the Regulations; so the registration officer is not obliged to sell them.
The Home Office will issue guidance to registration officers on the response that they should give to requests for the sale of these tapes, and in deciding policy and preparing this guidance we shall take full account of the points made this afternoon. There is a very great problem here, and, in my view, my hon. Friend's proposal is not the right way to go about it.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Before he sits down, would my right hon. Friend reply to my question about the supplying of the absent voters list? I am very much concerned about the use of the register by Tracing Services Limited and other debt collection agencies. Is there any instruction given to returning officers about whether this information is to be supplied to enquirers?

Mr. Rees: I will check that point, but I think that the answer is that the absent voters list is in exactly the same position as the other documents. It is a public document. Perhaps I could have a word with my hon. Friend on the point. There could be a side issue of which I am not aware.

AID POLICY

3.20 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: It is just about four months since my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) put the House in his debt by raising on a Private Member's Motion on a Friday the issue

of aid and development. Since that debate in November, there has been, in February, a quite important conference in the United States. Thanks to the initiative of Lady Barbara Ward Jackson, there were discussions on the Pearson Report at Williamsburg, followed by a conference at Columbia University, in New York. I was lucky enough to attend the conference and to hear the distinguished contribution made by the right hon. Lady the Minister. It was probably the first time in her life that she was billed to appear immediately after a Roman Catholic cardinal. Her contribution was much appreciated, and I am grateful to her for attending the House today. I told her on that occasion that hoped to raise this matter before we rose for the Easter Recess.
The Columbia conference started with a speech by Mr. Lester Pearson. I hope that the right hon. Lady, who has said that she will distribute to the House some material on this subject, will consider circulating Mr. Pearson's speech, which I thought was of considerable importance. Mr. Pearson answered most effectively both extreme points of view. He answered those who would seek to rely entirely on market forces to solve the problems of under-development, and he also answered those members of the less-developed countries—and they were well represented at Columbia—who would like to make a clean break with the richer nations and who look on unequal partnership as the consequences of, as they would say, the essentially exploitative character of the dominant Powers' grip on the resources of the world.
As we started this debate a little before 3.30, the House perhaps will forgive me if I make two quotations from Mr. Pearson's speech to show how effectively he answered those extreme points of view. In answer to those who believe that market forces can solve the problems of development—a view explicitly turned down by the Pearson Commission—Mr. Pearson said:
If to one kind of environment we apply, unchanged, policies evolved for another, then, I think, they have a fair chance of failing. This is the core of my disagreement with those who would abandon aid to development in favour of renewed reliance upon the traditional international market system. To do so would, I believe, entail far more confidence in the method than is justified by economic history. It would also gloss over the violent contrasts


between our problems today and those of the areas and epochs where 'normal methods' are supposed to have worked. I believe, on the contrary, that the market system did not work unaided even in the hyper-favourable conditions of the 19th century Atlantic world. … When … critics spea today of 'normal' methods of development by way of orderly investment aimed at commercial returns achieved by verifiable increases in productivity, they forget, I think, that immeasurably vast 'takeover', virtually for free of the world's best, largest, agricultural reserves by the small group of Europeans erupting out of Western Europe and occupying every remaining temperate land in the course of two brief centuries. To exclude this immense enrichment and talk of 'development' as a normal increment of careful commercial investment is, to my mind, to talk nonsense. Nothing comparable is available to developing nations today—unless we use our abundant capital and technology to provide a comparable gift.
Those words were much appreciated by the conference, because Mr. Pearson showed that he not only understood, but also felt emotionally, the very close association that persists between underdevelopment and tropicality. We often do not recognise sufficiently enough the extent to which the problems of world poverty and the problems of underdevelopment are bound up acutely with tropical areas.
But Mr. Pearson went on to answer with equal point those who felt that the right strategy for the less-developed countries was to cut themselves off from the richer nations altogether and to make a clean break. I am bound to say—and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will know what I mean—that when one hears some of these arguments they distinctly recall the ingenious, but I never thought quite plausible, arguments of people like the late Mr. Leo Amery at Conservative Party conferences years ago to justify this country attempting to follow an economic policy completely independent of the United States. The arguments which we heard from speakers at Columbia were curiously reminiscent of those debates which my hon. Friend and I well remember at party conferences some years ago.
Mr. Pearson said:
And great as progress has been in the last decade and high as ambition and dedication undoubtedly are, I do not yet see among the developing nations the margin of capital and managerial and technical skills needed to mobilise in time sufficient defence against the risk of a planet-sized disaster.

He then used these very effective words:
It is easy when one is oneself well-educated, well-fed and reasonably well-employed to speak of the duties and splendours and opportunities of total, unqualified self-reliance. But we are not the ones who starve. We do not witness the death of children and the misery of parents. We do not carry the despair of the workless or the hopelessness of the illiterate. If a total break could mobilise the scale of effort and resources needed for a 'great leap forward', we ought, no doubt, to support the idea. But if we are convinced that, on the contrary, it would deprive developing people's of essential inputs of capital and skill, I do not think we should romanticise policies which could carry with them the risk of dislocation, stagnation and spreading hunger.
Neither do I.
Those were wise words. I could not help being reminded, as I heard them, of the views expressed by the Minister of State, Home Office when she used to reply to me in education debates. She used to speak of the "ruthlessness" of a certain point of view. She was, rightly, always in favour of having a confrontation with the ruthlessness of those who wanted, as they claimed, to show up the hypocrisy of society and to overturn today's "system". Among those in the less-developed countries are a certain number of people who pursue the problem of development with the same kind of ruthlessness—ruthlessness which I do not believe could make sense in terms of human misery and the risk of starvation.
I come to what was said at the Williamsburg and Columbia conferences. They generally supported the Pearson recommendations. They saw in them a set of policies which, if adopted by Governments, could arrest and reverse the present relative decline in support for co-operative world development. They suggested that priority should be given, in particular, to four recommendations in the commission's report: to larger transfers of sustained and predictable resources from developed countries to less-developed countries; to the replenishment of I.D.A. for a five-year period; and to policies for relief of debt. As I said in November, this is a subject on which I find outside this country a slight difference of view from that which obtains in the right hon. Lady's Department. Strong views are held in other


continents on the issue of debt repayment and debt relief. Lastly, the conferences suggested better access to world markets for the exports of less developed countries.
Having mentioned the ways in which the conferences at Williamsburg and Columbia endorsed the Pearson Commission's Report, I turn to the respects in which it encountered criticism. I am thinking particularly of the speeches I heard at Columbia.
I said when I spoke in the November debate that, as a member of the Pearson Commission, I thought it was important to take neither too pessimistic nor too optimistic a view of world development. I adhere to what I said on that occasion, and yet I cannot help agreeing, bearing in mind the general sense of the Columbia conference, that the Pearson Commission, in emphasising that development was a "lickable" proposition, perhaps underrated the crisis that exists today in relations between the developed and the developing world.
There was widespread feeling that the developing nations operate in a world in which much of the resources, and most of the positions of power, are controlled by the nations which are already developed. The ratio of wealth of population in the developed nations is approximately 80–20—whereas, of course, for the developing peoples exactly the reverse is true.
This fact, that the gap in living standards throughout the world is today growing more rapidly than ever before, came out most vividly in a paper submitted by Dr. Richard Jolly, of the Institute of Development Studies. Whether or not the right hon. Lady and I agreed with everything that was said by Dr. Jolly at Columbia, we will agree that his paper made a bigger impact than that of any of the other critics of the commission's report.
Dr. Jolly gave two sets of extremely interesting figures. He pointed out that the gap in living standards throughout the world was not merely great but was growing more rapidly than ever before. Perhaps 100 dollars or 200 dollars in 1850, the gap in average living standards between the wealthiest and poorest countries had widened to about 1,000 dollars by 1950, to about 1,500 dollars by 1960

and to over 2,000 dollars a year by 1970. By the end of the century, the average living standard per head, if one compared the wealthiest with the poorest countries, seemed likely to reach about 7,000 dollars.
While recognising that those are approximate figures, and are based on a number of assumptions, they give some measure of the crisis that faces us today. Another striking figure he gave is that by the end of the century it is probable that the standard of living per head for one-third of the world's population will still be less than 400 dollars a year, contrasted with an average of 10,000 dollars in North America. That is the measure of the problem we face.
This leads to another point that was made by Dr. Jolly and many others at the conference; the importance of seeking directly not merely to stimulate development but also to relieve poverty and unemployment. It was pointed out that growth rates of 5 per cent., 6 per cent. or even 7 per cent. would not necessarily deal with the most urgent problems of 25 per cent. of the world's population.
We must remember that in certain parts of the world where there have been considerable increases in growth rates year by year there still remains an intractable problem of unemployment. Furthermore, the poorest 25 per cent. of the world are today trapped in a situation of poor diet, bad health, illiteracy and unemployment. That should influence our targets in developing the strategy we want not merely to achieve higher growth rates but to improve diets, increase provision in health matters and provide better conditions to give wider employment for the poorest members of the less-developed countries. There was widespread feelings about the importance of developing a strategy designed to fit the specific needs of particular regions of the world, a subject to which I shall return when I deal with the Jackson Report.
What are the lessons for us in the light of these considerations, and what are the points on which we should continue to press the Government? First, we should press the Minister to go a little further regarding the Pearson target of 0.7 per cent. of the gross national product in public aid flows. I hope that the right hon. Lady will today go a little further than


saying, 'This is one of the many things that we would like to do".
I appreciate that we have a Government plan for the control of public expenditure—in some respects, notably education, it is not a very realistic one—and I am conscious of the fact that the right hon. Lady is bound by that. But I hope that she will say more than just that the Pearson target of 0.7 per cent is one of the many aspirations that the Government hope to fulfil. In other words, we want to be assured that it is a target which Britain should certainly be able to achieve by the end of this decade. We cannot too often remind ourselves that while Britain, in relation to the rest of the world, may periodically go broke, as a country we are not poor. Furthermore, I still believe that we owe a debt for the fact that we were one of the great imperial Powers. We must have a continuing sense of responsibility for those countries which were our dependencies up to a short time ago.
I hope that it is recognised by the House, and that we will remind public opinion, that the developing countries have not merely development problems but also continuing foreign exchange problems. This is a subject on which I have frequently spoken in the House and I hesitate to weary hon. Members again on this issue. However, it is fair to say that 15 years ago, under the influence of people like Walt Rostow, emphasis was on take-off from the point of view of the developing countries. Today it is realised that there is an intractable foreign exchange problem, too. I have always believed it a fallacy to suppose that all nations are fundamentally in equilibrium with one another, except when they are not. This is exactly the same mistake as used to be made by those who said that Britain had really no dollar gap after the last war, but that the whole trouble was caused by excessive spending. Some people have remained too much in thrall to nineteenth century free trade economics, in totally different world circumstances.
The Pearson recommendations were also, of course, concerned with trade and liquidity. May we be assured that those recommendations are being considered by the Government and that the great importance of the developing countries will always be borne in mind, for example,

during the Common Market negotiations? We need not only to think of the consequences of entering the Common Market for our cost of living but also to bear in mind the important implications for the developing countries.
There is everything to be said for mobilising public opinion in this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) rightly said in the last debate, it is important to know the answers to give to critics. Whilst I sympathise with the importance attached to environment, let us remember that economic development is itself a major part of the task of making sense of man's environment. It would be absurd if we paid even more attention to the effects of pollution than to the grinding poverty of the bottom 25 per cent. of the world's population.
Next, the Jackson proposals. These are extremely important in that they emphasise the need for the programming of international assistance at country level, with a much stronger U.N.D.P. playing a central, co-ordinating rôle. They require the whole operation being organised within a developed, co-operated cycle comprising all the elements of project formulation, budgeting and implementation within a five-year programme. These are indeed important recommendations.
Let us remember how this all looks from the point of view of the country receiving aid. Mr. Peter Williams, who was present at the conference, said at a seminar, as one highly experienced in these matters, that there were enormous problems when a great many questions were suddenly asked at short notice of a developing country with slender resources of skill, administration and manpower. There are also the recommendations in Jackson for a reform of headquarters at agency levels.
To me, the really important aspect of the Jackson Report is that we do indeed need to give increasing emphasis to strengthening the kind of international institutions which have some semblance of balanced representation. I look on the Jackson Report as pointing the way to a slightly less unequal partnership in international economic world relations. For that reason alone, it is a document of high importance.
My last point is to emphasise how important it is that we should think of development in real, concrete terms. It is often talked about in broad abstract terms, which is understandable. Perhaps, indeed, this is the one week in the year in which all of us think more than we would otherwise do about these all-important abstract concepts of love, power and justice. But it is important to view world development in real terms, and to descend to thought about particular sectors and individual projects.
I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that it is not enough just to pay lip service to aid and development. It is incumbent upon the wealthier nations to take action—and we shall not be able to maintain our own comfortable living standards unless we make our contribution to a world order under which all nations can live in peace and in dignity.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for this debate. In welcoming what he said, we should recognise the need for the House, some time during the next few months, to move for a full day's debate in Government time upon the progress made in implementing both the Pearson and the Jackson Reports. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate after the Recess, and I hope that others, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development will support me.
I turn, first, to the Jackson Report. I support its broad conception and I am sure that most of us who have studied these matters want to see its recommendations carried through. What worries me is that inevitably—there are signs of it already—there will be considerable opposition from the United Nations Specialised Agencies to the implementation of the main Jackson recommendations.
It is natural that these agencies should resist them. It is almost inevitable. But the Jackson recommendations can only be carried through in this situation if the main Governments, particularly those of

the larger Powers, treat this matter as a major item on the international agenda, if there are firm Cabinet decisions in favour of the Jackson strategy and if these are pushed strongly through the appropriate machinery. I understand that the governing body of the U.N.D.P. is meeting this week. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell us about the attitude of the representative of Her Majesty's Government.
I want to elaborate on what the right hon. Gentleman said about aid volume. He asked my right hon. Friend to say something about the Government's intentions towards the fulfilment of the Pearson target of 0·7 of 1 per cent. in official aid. Even if she cannot say anything more about it today, I hope that this is being vigorously pursued within the Government machinery in relation to this year's public expenditure review.
The central fact about our aid programme is that it is too small, that it has always been too small and that it should grow. It is tragic that we are approaching the 1970s with the prospect that, even if we fulfil all our aid intentions, we shall still fall short in 1974 of the pledges of the Labour Party and Labour Government over many years and of the proposals made by the Pearson Commission.
The fact that the petition organised by the Council of Churches has attracted over 1 million signatures—I understand that it received the millionth yesterday—is evidence that a growing minority of our people—although still a minority—would support a higher aid performance, and that number includes very many young people.
Last November, my hon. Friend, in announcing the figures for the next few years, said that she was not then making a response to the Pearson Report. She said, quite reasonably, that it had only been received a few weeks previously and it was too early to respond to it. I deduce from that that we are still due to have a response to the report about aid volume. This has to take effect, if it does not do so earlier, in the context of the public expenditure review this year.
The figures announced last autumn were a five-year span up to the year 1973–74. The figures which will be announced this autumn will go up to a year later, to the financial year 1974–75.


I take it to be incontestible that the new fifth year—1974–75—should provide for a larger aid total than in the preceding years. This follows logically from what my right hon. Friend said—that she hoped to reach the Pearson target some time within the 1970s. I hope that that is realised even within the darkest recesses of the Treasury.
But that is not sufficient. What I am suggesting—and I hope my right hon. Friend will take the point and, even if she cannot comment now, will press it within the Government machine—is that it is essential that the programme for the intervening years should be raised and that this decision should be made plain in the public expenditure review this year. The programme should be raised sufficiently to put us on course for reaching the volume targets of Pearson—I regard the 0·7 and the 1 per cent. as being related to each other. The Overseas Development Institute has calculated that, if we are to be on course for this, we need to provide about an extra £50 million in four years' time. That, out of a total public expenditure of £20,000 million, is a comparatively small sum. If this country takes seriously its duty in the fight against world poverty, we ought at least to do that.
I remind the House that it was in early 1968 that, at the second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, we promised to use our best endeavours to reach a 1 per cent. flow of resources as soon as our position allowed. The balance of payments, if it ever was an excuse for not doing this, is no longer an excuse. If we meant what we said at that conference in 1968, it is not unreasonable that we should carry out the pledge seven years later in 1975. I hope and believe that we shall do so.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Has the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) the agreement of the Minister to intervene in an arranged debate?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I understand that my intervention will be acceptable. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is perhaps impertinent of me to intervene in a debate in which we have heard such distinguished contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), but I intervene briefly to put one point which, I hope, the Minister will consider and about which I feel rather strongly.
Trade versus aid is one of the old arguments on the subject of foreign aid. I think that everyone would agree that it helps developing countries enormously if they have sufficient investment and industry can be encouraged. But many of the developing countries are not attracting, I fear, as much investment as they could which could help them to restore their economies. This is because of the policies of unreasonably high taxation, of difficulties in sending remittances of profits and of sequestration of industry.
In many countries—India, for example—taxation is too high; in other countries—like Ceylon and Nigeria—there are difficulties of sending remittances which cause real problems; again, in Tanzania and Indonesia, for example, sequestration has undermined confidence in their economies.
I wonder whether consideration has been given by the Minister to encouraging or otherwise promoting a code of cemmercial conduct on the part of those countries which receive aid from us, because I think that, apart from the benefits which they secure from aid, that would enable them to make their own economies grow by their own efforts by encouraging increased foreign investment.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for a speech of admirable clarity and feeling. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that it is a great pity that we have not more time to discuss a subject of such importance, and I will reinforce him in the plea that he is to make for a fuller debate.
I would not dissent from a single word which my right hon. Friend said about


the case for an international aid programme on a sufficiently adequate scale to make a real impact upon the problem of world poverty. I agree entirely with him that the problem is one which cannot be safely left, as some pundits tell us, to the operation of market forces. He quoted Dr. Richard Jolly, who has said that the gap between the rich and the poor nations is widening. That gap will go on widening still further because of the population explosion now taking place in the developing countries.
As my right hon. Friend reminded us, we are talking not merely about the desirability of increasing growth rates, which we can do from the comfortable recesses of our armchairs, but about the need for gainful employment for the ever-increasing millions, for tackling the evils of poverty, malnutrition and disease which afflict so large a part of the world, for giving a real chance to millions of our people to lead a life worth living.
One reason why I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised this subject this afternoon is that many of us are conscious that the way ahead for international development is at the moment clouded with doubt and anxiety. There is anxiety about the United States. The fact is that that country provides at least half of the total Western aid effort, and any flagging of American effort, any change in the direction of American aid, must have profound effects upon the whole development scene. I am bound to say that in this country, too, there is some uncertainty as to the direction in which we are moving. Certainly the Pearson recommendation that we should be devoting 1 per cent. of the gross national product to aid by 1975 has fired the enthusiasm of many; so it is a good thing in that sense. Indeed, I think we have all been greatly impressed by the fervour of those who signed the December declaration. However, the fact is that while the Government accept the general target of 1 per cent. we are a long way from achieving it, and, without getting into any kind of statistical argument—though I could follow the right hon. Gentleman on that, but time does not permit—the truth is that we have no hope whatsoever on present form of reaching the 1 per cent. target by 1975, or, indeed, the lesser target of 0·7

per cent. of gross national product in the norm of official aid.
Of course the right hon. Lady knows that the British aid effort is at the moment subject to very close scrutiny in the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, and it would be quite improper for me to refer in any way to the possible conclusions which that body may reach, but those of us who have followed this debate on development elsewhere, who have read the literature, and who have had the benefit of listening to the advice of my right hon. Friend, know that serious doubts are creeping in as to whether the Pearson approach is wholly the right one. For example, the 1 per cent. target does not really relate to aid in the accepted sense of the word but to total financial flows to the developing countries including guaranteed export credits and private investment. Yet the odd thing is that it does not include any provision for the substantial transfer of resouces which the Government and their predecessors have been making to developing countries through commodity agreements.
Thus, the Pearson target is no more than a rough measuring rod, and its only real merit is that it fixes in ordinary people's mind—and admitting this is a real merit—a reasonable-sounding target which it should be within the capacity of relatively wealthy nations like ours, to achieve. It is true that the Pearson proposal to redefine the objective by saying that at least 0·7 per cent. of G.N.P. should be in the form of official aid is a recognition that Governments, if they have the will, can provide the resources out of public funds, but they cannot guarantee private flows. Of course, we should try to do our best to reach the target, but there is no possibility whatsoever that the private flows can be stepped up in the Pearson context as long as the Government refuse to remove the fiscal disincentives to private overseas investment they have introduced, or to enter into investment guarantees along the lines which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned this afternoon.
I myself feel that there is a strong argument for not allowing ourselves to be mesmerised by targets but rather to concentrate our attention much more on


the quality of the aid which we are providing, and the purpose of this short debate will have been well served if the Minister will say something about that in her remarks. For example, it looks to me, following the report of the Peterson Task Force to President Nixon, as if the United States may move away from a bilateral aid programme towards channelling more aid through the international lending institutions such as the World Bank, I.D.A., regional banks and so on. There may be a good deal of merit in this. I would concede that multilateral aid can be used to finance large and costly projects, whether channelled through the World Bank or through consortia of countries acting together, and this has the advantage, from the donor countries' point of view, that they individually do not have to take initiatives which can prove costly and embarrassing if other donors refuse, for one reason or another, to participate. Multilateral aid should also make it easier for recipient Governments to adopt the right kind of approach to their own development, while donor governments cannot then be charged with neo-colonialism.
I am bound to say, however, that in the case of the United Nations development programme there is doubt, for historical reasons concerning the way in which the specialised agencies have grown, as to whether it is capable of anything more than marginal changes, certainly until such time as reform on the lines of the Jackson Report is implemented. Experience shows—and to say this is the real reason for my intervention that it is less the way in which aid is channelled to the developing countries than the use to which the aid is put, and the way it is co-ordinated on the ground, which matters. I would hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will be able to say something about the steps the Government are taking to improve the British aid administration in the field, both on evaluating projects in advance and in seeing that they are properly carried out so that there is no waste or duplication.
One of the most successful developments in British overseas aid has been the setting up of regional aid divisions. Only two have so far been established, one in the Middle East, and one in the Caribbean. We shall be most interested to hear whether the Government have

any proposals to move any further in this direction.
There are also certain matters in which the Government really must take a positive stand this year if heed is to be paid to the recommendations of the Pearson Report.
First, what attitude do the Government take towards the proposal that the major donors and recipients should meet this year to discuss ways of improving the effective administration of aid? Secondly, what attitude do they take towards the proposal that the World Bank should convene a conference of multilateral agencies, regional banks, major bilateral donors and representatives of the developing countries this year to discuss the creation of improved machinery for coordinating and reviewing aid programmes?
Lastly, bearing in mind that aid is not the sole, or even the main, factor in promoting economic growth and speeding advance towards the eradication of world poverty, what initiatives are the Government taking in the world forum to secure a framework of world trade which will give the developing nations an easier access to the world's markets?

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for carrying out his promise made at Columbia to initiate a debate of this kind. We all agree about the considerable frustration in not having sufficient time to discuss overseas aid. I have been adding up the amount of time which I have been able to spend, including today's debate, in discussing aid matters since I became Minister at the beginning of October and, excluding of course Question Time, it amounts to only 25 minutes.
This reflects the amount of time that hon. Members on the other side of the House and on the back benches everywhere have had to do the same thing. It is disproportionately small. I would certainly encourage everyone here—and I will support their efforts—to get a longer debate at an early date.
As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who is with us, and in view of what the right hon. Member for


Birmingham, Handsworth said at the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member may like to know that this morning, following the receipt of the million signatures, I received from the hon. Member for Canterbury his petition forms which include the very distinguished names of the Archbishop of Canterbury and many members of his Church in Canterbury. I was delighted to be able to receive this.
There are so many questions to answer and too little time. I will try to give priority to one or two subjects. The Jackson Report must be one, because it is important at this moment. I will say something about the conferences in North America and about the four points which the right hon. Gentleman rightly identified as emerging as priorities from these conferences. If I have time I will say something, not so much about the content of our aid programme as about the sort of objectives within it.
The Jackson Report, which has been emphasised, rightly, as being of great importance, came out towards the end of 1969. It was produced by Sir Robert Jackson and called "The United Nations Capacity Study". It examined the United Nations Development System which is the main multilateral source of technical and pre-investment assistance, including all the Specialised Agencies that administer development programmes.
To put this in perspective, I should mention that by 1968 the scale of the effort had risen to an annual level of 230 million dollars, of which 170 million dollars, or 75 per cent., was direct from the U.N.D.P. whose resources consist of voluntary contributions by member-Governments. We are a considerable contributor.
The findings of the capacity study was that the system was suffering from strain and needed reform if it was to develop the capacity to handle a greater volume of aid, which, hopefully, it might expect during the second development decade. To put things into perspective I ought to say that in Sir Robert Jackson's view some 80 per cent. of the output of the system, was efficient. This is derived from a letter to The Times and not the report itself.
We are talking marginally here, but very importantly along the margin about

the efficiency of the U.N. system. As major contributors to the system, which has been increasing its budget in recent years, we have the greatest interest in ensuring that every penny provided should be used to the maximum advantage of the developing countries. This is the whole objective of the system. We share Sir Robert Jackson's wish to see an increase in the United Nations Development System so that it can handle an increased volume of technical and pre-investment assistance and bring about an improvement in the service that it provides to developing countries.
The Governing Council of the U.N.D.P. has been specially convened in New York to examine the capacity study. The session is nearing its end. I cannot say what its conclusions will be. They will obviously to some extent be provisional at this stage, as is inevitable, and will probably be carried a stage further at the next regular session of the council to be held in Geneva in June. The general spirit that has prevailed seems to have been positive.
The essential proposals of the Jackson Report relating to the focus on co-ordinated planning at the country level, what is called country programming, and the organisational changes both at that level and at regional and central level will concentrate responsibility for the balance and impact in the U.N.D.P. contribution in the hands of the U.N.D.P. resident representatives. There has been a wide measure of agreement.
The developing countries have naturally and rightly emphasised that the determination of national objectives in development, the identification of the rôle in approaching them and the social and economic priorities in relation to each developing country must be decisions for the developing countries themselves.
This is the point I sought to emphasis in my discussions in North America about the Jackson Report, that one must start from the point of view of the development countries themselves. One must not merely accept the situation, but must emphasise their right to make their own decisions about their planning priorities.
I am glad that during the recent discussions on the Jackson Report which


are still continuing with the developing and developed countries there has been a tendency to identify the same objectives and the same methodology of approach. There seems to have been no conflict whatever, and this is quite right since there is a real identification of interests in this matter. The developing countries as a whole seem to have welcomed the prospect of participation in a United Nations development co-operation cycle, on the Jackson model, in order to ensure a coherent and cost-effective application of resources.
The United Kingdom representatives have played a constructive part in supporting this convergence of opinion. We have been in no doubt about our view of the Jackson Report. We hope—and we will play our part towards this end—that a growing proportion of development assistance will flow through multilateral channels.
This is one of the main recommendations of the Pearson Commission. But if a growing proportion of aid from Britain is to flow through multilateral channels it is the more important that the necessary reorganisations are carried through.
I will not go into detail about our own aid programme, but I feel that we have a right to be satisfied that the management of the bilateral aid programme is highly efficient and cost-effective. If we are to put an increasing proportion of our aid programme through multilateral channels, it is all the more important that we should be able to believe that such expenditure is being channelled effectively. I have no doubt that this will be so.
The Jackson Capacity Study has struck a fresh note in taking a new look at the effectiveness of international action. It has analysed its inadequacies and stressed its successes. We intend to put our best endeavours into achieving the main objectives of the Jackson Report. The right hon. Member for Handsworth, identified four areas on which concentration was aimed at the Columbia conference, in New York, and I should like to say a word or two about those matters. I will leave official flows until last. I have a strong feeling that if I begin on that point I shall use all my time.
I thought that the Williamsburg conference, which I did not attend but which produced some immensely valuable papers that I hope will be provided in the Library, and the Columbia conference were extremely useful. So, also, was my own opportunity to attend the conference of the Overseas Development Council in Washington, where, hon. Members will be surprised to hear, I was asked to make an opening speech emphasising the splendid response that Britain has so far made to the Pearson Commission's Report as an example to other donor nations.
This will strike a not exactly ready ear amongst those who are concerned about it, but it puts in fair reflection our comparative performance in relation to other donor countries in responding to Pearson. I also attended a private conference in Montebello of the heads of all the multilateral bodies, at which we threw round our ideas about Jackson and Pearson.
Let me come next to I.D.A. replenishment. As is so often the case, when one is not doing well enough, plenty of public concentration is devoted to one's shortcomings; but when one is doing well, it passes unnoticed. One of the major Pearson recommendations has attracted a great deal of attention in Parliamentary Questions since I became Minister. It is what will be the scale of our contributions to the I.D.A. replenishment and will Britain play its full part? I announced last Thursday—and it went as unmarked as any answer to a Question that I have experienced—that we have made it clear in the I.D.A. discussions that we are ready to make our contribution at a scale which will allow 1 billion dollars replenishment of I.D.A.
There are one or two points that we shall need to discuss in relation to this, but we are thoroughly supporting a very large increase in I.D.A. activity, and the very large replenishment which this figure indicates. I am glad to say that as a result of what was an initiative of ours we are seeing one or two other countries following our example. So perhaps I may score a point: we have responded very well to an important Pearson target, and I shall be delighted if the House will take note of that and underline it.
The discussions are not yet complete. They will have to continue over the next


few months, and there are one or two other countries which will have a crucial rôle to play if the eventual I.D.A. replenishment is to be at that level. Much will depend on them in the coming months.
As regards access to markets, we support the general objectives of the Pearson Report, though not all the detailed ideas, many of which have to be discussed internationally. Some are being discussed already; for example, generalised preferences. In general, our record is pretty good.
On debt relief, which the Pearson Commission and the Columbia conference identified as being a major issue, here again we have an extremely good record in that, since 1965, about half of our aid has been in grant form, with the remainder in loans, 90 per cent. of which have been interest-free, often with a seven-year grace period before capital repayments are due.
About the response of developing countries on investment matters, there was a conference in Amsterdam last year at which the developing countries themselves responded very well. The difficulty at arriving at a code of conduct which would fit the criteria which have been mentioned by one hon. Member today arose not from them but from the developed countries.
I see that I have only about one minute left, which adds force to what I said earlier about the small amount of time at our disposal to discuss these subjects, and that we would like a longer debate. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House is not here, but the Deputy Leader of the House is, and he is, no doubt, taking note of what I say.
I should like to say a great deal about the kind of criteria that we need to apply to aid. I should like to say something about how I see population planning going and what contribution Britain may be able to make. I should like to say something about what I see as the close interlinked relationship between the success of population planning and the success of rural development. But, in a debate on aid, I accept that I must leave those matters for another occasion. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Handsworth for initiating the debate.

COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that five right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have indicated that they wish to take part in the last 45 minutes of debate. How many get in will depend on the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), whose debate it is, and the Minister, who has the right to reply.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I am prompted, Mr. Speaker, to make the case for an inquiry into the communications industry, because I believe that there is deep concern and anxiety about the control, ownership and influence of newspapers, television and radio. This is why more than 100 hon. Members in the last three years have been prepared to put down an Early Day Motion asking for a Royal Commission to be set up to examine the present and prospective financial structure of the film, television and newspaper industries, particularly for the purpose of making recommendations about what measures must be taken by the Government or bodies set up by the Government to protect and expand the areas of free dissemination of news and free debate.
There have been one or two interesting references to the serious nature of the communications industry within the last few weeks. Indeed, on 23rd March, Lord Thomson, referring to the running costs of The Times, said:
the unions have got to make some contribution to this. I cannot keep pouring in this kind of money and have some of it drained way in make-work practices and stupid manning requirements".
This is a serious point of view. It is perhaps overstating the fault and the responsibility of the trade unions, but we cannot deny that the trade unions, management and the Government have interests in the communications industry.
In the short time available to me to put the case, I should like to examine the rôles of Government, trade unions and management in the newspaper industry. If my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I think that he will be better equipped to deal with those aspects of communications relating to television and radio.
Another reference which shows up the fragmented nature of the communications industry is the report, published within the last 36 hours, of the "Little Neddy" for the printing industry which points out that, although low profitability seems widespread, many overseas printers have been investing heavily in new plant and equipment. It also says that a big increase in international competition in printing during the 1970s is forecast.
Here we have a reference to publishing and printing very much relating to the whole of the communications industry. I believe, therefore, that the newspaper industry is not just a service industry in isolation, but is interdependent on printing and publishing and on communications generally. Indeed, it has been argued that part of the problem of getting sufficient revenue into newspapers in the last ten years has been because some has inevitably been hived off elsewhere—certainly into commercial television. Therefore, we must look at the industry as a whole.
The Press centres on printing and publishing, which has an annual turnover estimated at nearly £100,000 million, an annual investment of about £40 million, and employs about 400,000 people in 7,500 establishments. Therefore, it is a big industry.
Unfortunately, the problem which confuses the public is why a number of newspapers are so vulnerable—why newspapers like the News Chronicle and the Star closed; why the Sketch and the Sun, selling more than 1 million copies, could disappear before the end of 1971; and why advertising is so powerful compared with other countries. More than 70 per cent. of total revenue of the Sunday Times comes from advertising. In most cases, it is about 60 per cent. of total revenue.
Let me examine the trade union rôle. There has often been criticism of the trade unions for not taking the initiative. I reject this view. I realise that there are many company practices which could be altered, but the National Graphical Association, of which I am a member and which is one of the craft unions, supported the use of consultants to look at management-union practices. The E.I.U. report was not a management report. It was jointly decided to have the inquiry and jointly decided to publish the report. The report which I have men-

tioned, the "Little Neddy" which dealt with international competitiveness in the industry, was again a joint operation, and this perhaps was not made sufficiently clear in the Press today. On this Committee there were five trade unionists and five management representatives.
There is also a reference to the way in which the unions have operated in their concern for provincial newspapers. The N.U.J. has asked the Newspaper Society for an inquiry into productivity, plant operations and employee security. There is the question of the future rôle of trade unions, and I have no doubt that a new collective bargaining structure is desirable. I predict that many problems within the unions could be resolved if there were one union for the industry. Perhaps within four or five years this will become reality. It would be wrong for anyone to become hysterical about the inability of the trade unions to put their own house in order. I believe that this will be done. After all, over the last five years a large number of mergers have taken place which would have been unthinkable ten or twelve years ago. I suggest that the observations on the trade union rôle in practice present a different picture from that normally expressed outside the House.
The second part of this relationship concerns management. The E.I.U. points out that management needs to be available. As one who has worked both in management and on the shop floor in the industry, I realise the acute need to have accurate decision-making at night. One therefore has to have a management team that goes right through the operation. The Cameron Report pointed out that management should not exploit the unions, and many references have been made to that. The industry presents problems to management. It is topsy-turvy and there are many scattered units. Of the 7,500 establishments in newspapers, printing and publishing, 70 per cent. have fewer than 25 people. At the same time, there are powerful unions. Of the other 30 per cent. one has assets of over £100 million, two of £50 million and three of about £20 million.
The third part of the relationship is the Government. The Government have been unprepared to make sufficient comment or to offer direction to the industry as a whole. The public and the 400,000


people who work in newspapers and related trades want to know what positive steps the Government intend to take. Many suggestions have been made, but they come down to four, and this is where I believe a Royal Commission or a Select Committee inquiry could decide the most suitable rôle for the Government to pursue.
There is, first, the newspaper subsidy. To overcome the fear of arbitrary Government discrimination or the influence of management activities, a subsidy on newsprint wholly redistributed within the newspaper industry would be an advantage. It would be neither tax nor public subsidy, and the rebate could be fixed to benefit all newspapers with high editorial content.
The second possibility is the setting up of a national finance corporation for newspapers to advance loans at low interest or free of interest to enable newspapers to re-equip themselves to meet the increasing demands of technology. The importance of technology must not be minimised. It is now progressing rapidly in the printing industry.
The third possibility, which is favoured by some of my colleagues on this side of the House, is the straightforward support of Government advertising to help the small circulation newspapers, so as to avoid the absurd situation that one or two newspapers associated with the Left have great difficulties in getting sufficient advertising from the Government sources.
The fourth possibility, the one which I favour, is the Eady plan which is used in the cinematograph industry. It means this would make it possible to redistribute the revenue within the industry and would overcome the problem of Government interference, which I think is an exaggerated fear. With the Eady levy in the cinematograph industry the people who take the decisions and who sit on the main committee are from the industry itself. Although the President of the Board of Trade acts as chairman, he has very little executive control. The Eady levy also means that is. 6d. of the price of the seat of every person who visits the cinema is directed to the producers, a fact which is seldom realised. The Eady levy administered by the Government on the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council enables vulnerable

areas of that industry to re-equip and become much more active and lively.
Whichever proposal is most likely to succeed in the context of the newspaper industry, it is quite clear that if we accepted an Eady plan it would mean that the levy would have to come not only from newspaper advertising but also from the other source of advertising—television.
That brings me to the centre of the argument—that if we are to have an inquiry it must consider the whole range of the communications industry. Many people have asked why we should have another inquiry. They say that we have already had many. We have had a Royal Commission. The important fact is that we have not yet had an inquiry which looked at the communications industry in total. That is the real weakness of the attempts that have been made to assess the value and nature of the industry. Some people feel that Government aid means Government control, but there are many examples in which, over the years, Governments have created various structures and given support and encouragement to the arts, culture and other services, and in respect of which no one has suggested manipulation by the Government.
The reports that we have had have helped to clarify union and management tasks. I remind the House that the solution to many of the industry's problems will be made much more difficult without State support and encouragement. It is conceivable that my hon. Friend in replying, will take an opposite view. He may feel that the Government should not interfere or give a subsidy or attempt an Eady plan in relation to the communications industry—

Mr. Speaker: Part of what the hon. Member is suggesting would require legislation. He must stick to his demand for an inquiry.

Mr. Moonman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say that the important point is that the task of a Royal Commission or Select Committee would be to examine all the possible alternatives to see whether it would be desirable to pursue the various reports that have been published, whether we need further information. Basically, we are looking at the control of industry and the management of the industry, but


there is also the question of influences in the industry—and there are doubts about State interference. We need a Royal Commission to sort things out, because we have not had a previous inquiry into the whole of the communications industry. We need a Royal Commission, perhaps, because democracy itself is threatened when the means of communication are vulnerable and at economic risk, when it becomes part of a conglomerate's catch, when it is conceivable that the communications industry—especially newspapers—will be taken over by people with no association with it and no tradition in it, and very little sympathy with it. That is why we desperately need a Royal Commission.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) at quite the speed at which he spoke, but I appreciate the reason for his speaking so quickly; we are all anxious to cover the subject thoroughly and to get home.
The hon. Member has asked for an inquiry into the communications industry—a Royal Commission or some other form of inquiry. I should not be opposed to such an inquiry. Perhaps I should declare an interest. Although I no longer have an interest in the advertising industry, however, I have one in public relations. I want, however, to touch on the advertising aspect and speak in support of advertising in the communications industry. There is a case for an inquiry into the industry. We are all concerned about the problem that faces large and small newspapers and television companies.
We are concerned whether the Press can keep on its feet and remain healthy and viable, free to express its views. An inquiry would be a good thing. When I spoke in the House nearly two years ago, in an Adjournment debate concerned with advertising, I supported the idea that the Government should carry out an investigation into it.
We are talking of very big forces in communications and advertising. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned three possible solutions to the problems facing the Press today. He spoke of a levy on newsprint. This is an interesting solution, presumably to raise money for dis-

tribution to newspaper publishers finding difficulties in remaining in business. He mentioned, too, the National Finance Corporation as a possible help, and his third idea of possible support was to do with Government advertising. It is on this issue that I want to say something. Those three solutions are typically Socialist solutions to a problem of communications.
I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite feel concerned that the communications industry is a free one. I do not think that they really want to come in and take over the industry, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio will not suggest that the Government would like to take any form of control. I would resist that strongly. At the same time I am concerned at the weak position in which the communications industry finds itself.
The money that the Government spend on advertising is not something which can be played around with as a levy. It is not a subsidy, it is something which the Government use to support Government activities. The Government say that it is necessary to spend money to find recruits for the Armed Forces or to find recruits for the Police Force or ask people to join the Civil Service or sit examinations in the Civil Service. This is how the Government use their money, and they have to make a wise selection. Advertising is a commodity, and the Government have to act wisely just as any commercial operator has to act wisely over advertising expenditure. It is possible to be extravagant or to be economical.
It would be an unwise move for the Government to step into the industry with any one of these three solutions. I would remind the House, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, that the advertising industry is often maligned but has a great part to play in serving the commercial interests of the country and the communicating interests of many bodies, including the Government. Advertising in all its forms is a very valuable means of communication. The advertiser can invite people to buy his product, fly in his plane or join his armed forces.
There must be sensible judgment about a communications decision. It costs money to advertise. It is sensible that the spender should be free to make a


decision on economic grounds. He is making a specialised purchase, wanting to reach a specialised audience.
For example, it would be wrong to suggest that Government expenditure on advertising should be spread thinly over the media available so that everyone got a crack of the whip, as was suggested at one time by an hon. Member opposite. This is not a sensible, balanced and economic judgment about of how to spend Government, or anyone else's, money. I would refer the House to an answer given on 27th November, 1969, when the then Minister of State, Board of Trade, said:
Government advertising is determined in the way judged likely to achieve the best results most economically. I do not think that any other criteria are appropriate".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 128.]
I cannot say more than that because that sums up my case in a nutshell. I would not be against an inquiry, but I would be very much against any form of entry into the communications industry by the Government, or any form of Government control.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) says that he is not attracted by the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), but he failed to put forward any alternative.
If one advocates a Royal Commission, one must at least give some reasons for its establishment, and one must try to show the problems which such a Royal Commission would have to tackle.

Mr. Crouch: With an eye on you, Mr. Speaker, and on the clock, I forgot to make that point. The solution which I should favour would be a commercial one. I should agree with Lord Thomson. Let the price of newspapers rise; they are valuable things to purchase. I think that the revenue balance is wrong, and too much comes from advertising.

Mr. Jenkins: I did not intend to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to amend his speech, but that is what I have done. Now, in the next three or four minutes, I must get on with my own.
The problem is how to achieve and maintain a variety of outlet. The trouble is that we are not succeeding. Variety of outlet is declining. Therefore, our problem is not so much to attain freedom as to prevent the loss of freedom. We are beginning to see the loss of freedom. We can see it not only in newspapers but in the B.B.C. There is a terrible crisis in the B.B.C., the extent of which is not publicly appreciated, a crisis between the administration and the programme people. There is a serious crisis in independent television, a crisis which came to the surface in London Weekend recently, when there was virtually a walkout of programme people. It is a crisis between finance and administration, on the one hand, and the provision of information, news and programmes, on the other. It is that crisis to which a Royal Commission would have to direct itself.
Such a Royal Commission would need to see the media as a whole. One of our troubles is that we have never done just that. We have never looked at the media as a whole. We have had Commissions or Committees of inquiry into the Press, the B.B.C. and independent television, but never have we said to ourselves: What is the necessity, what is the national need, and what should we do to ensure that the national need continues to be served?
The assumptions upon which the newspapers were founded, based upon continuity of large-scale and ever-increasing competition, are not valid now. We live in an age of monopoly, of a shrinking number of newspapers. So those assumptions, which the hon. Member for Canterbury clearly still holds, no longer coincide with the facts of life.
The principles which are widely accepted in the communications industry are not principles of valid general application. For example, many people believe as an article of faith—I personally do not—that the B.B.C. must remain a single organisation in charge of sound radio and there must be no competition whatever. If that proposition were put forward in regard to newspapers, there would be shouts of horror all round. If the proposition is not valid in one case, it is not valid in the other. There must be something wrong here, and this consideration—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not accept it—would be one


of the matters which a Royal Commission would have to examine.
One of the immediately urgent problems is the problem in B.B.C. sound radio. Also, some newspapers, for instance, The Times and The Guardian, are said to be in immediate peril. I, therefore, not only favour the establishment of a Royal Commission but consider that there should, simultaneously and working alongside it, be a Select Committee of the House to act as a sort of fire brigade to deal with problems requiring urgent attention which could not wait the several years which it might take for a Royal Commission to produce its full report. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal not only with the question of a Royal Commission but also with the simultaneous establishment of a Select Committee.
Another aspect of the matter which has rightly engaged my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is the problem of technological advance. Here is something else which a Royal Commission would have to examine.
Advertising chases the mass consumer, and, in so doing, tends to starve variety and diminish diversity. These are the two essentials of communications, and a Royal Commission would have to try to establish and maintain them.
As my hon. Friend said in his able, if rapid, opening speech, there are several possibilities. Apart from a newsprint subsidy, my favourite possibility is the establishment of an advertising revenue board which would receive all the advertising revenue of all the media and redistribute it so as to maintain multiplicity of outlet and variety of control. We badly need a Royal Commission and a Select Committee, and we need them now.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: In August, 1968, the T.U.C. raised with the Postmaster-General some of the technical aspects of transmission, distribution and switching in television and broadcasting. It asked for an immediate committee of inquiry to make recommendations so as to secure the provision of the most economical and technically efficient service. In reply, the then Postmaster-General—the present Minister

for Posts and Telecommunications—argued that such an inquiry should not be held immediately but should await a possible inquiry in 1971. My union—the Post Office Engineering Union—was disappointed that it could not have an immediate and separate inquiry, but I hope that if the Government agree to such an inquiry technical aspects will be included. They are important because there is a great deal of duplication going on and more duplication is likely to occur in future.
At present, the broadcasting authority provides the programmes and transmission while the Post Office provides an interconnecting link network. We should like the Post Office to take responsibility for not only the distribution of programmes but also their transmission. This is particularly so in the local radio field where the Post Office could link local radio stations and there is some spare capacity in exchanges to give facilities for this transmission.
Another important point in this connection is the possibility of private control of broadcasting. If this misfortune came to pass, the ownership and control of the distribution and transmission of all types of broadcasting would ensure public control and avoid the obvious dangers of private interests exploiting broadcasting and television.
The T.U.C. has also called for an inquiry into the relay companies, and has drawn attention to Cmnd. 3520, in which the National Board for Prices and Incomes criticised certain activities of the relay companies. It will be practical soon for radio, television and telephone signals to be carried on one line, and that one line should be a public line. This will avoid expensive duplication and also the unsightliness of a multiplicity of overhead wires.
This is a vast subject and, in view of the time, I shall not pursue it. But I ask the Government to grant an inquiry into the communications industry and to include all technical aspects in that inquiry.

4.43 p.m.

The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend


the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) for raising this most interesting and important subject on the Adjournment. I fully appreciate—as did other hon. Members—why he spoke with such speed. It was very courteous to make it possible for other hon. Members to take part in this inevitably short debate. It had one slight by-product—a disadvantageous by-product—in that I was not certain that I followed and understood his every single word. However, I think that I got the main gist, and I should like now to comment as far as I can, both on his speech and those of other hon. Members.
First, I think that we are all united—the Government and Members of Parliament—in our great concern to maintain the quality of the means of communication in this country and to maintain the variety so that we get a widespread expression of different opinion and tastes. We are also concerned to secure the independence and impartiality of the different media. Obviously, my hon. Friend and many of those who signed the Motion which stands on the Order Paper on this subject feel that events are moving in a way which threaten either one or all three of these desirable aims—variety, independence and quality.
Let me, first, comment on the situation in the Press and television before I go on to make some direct comments on the proposal that the hon. Gentleman has put to the House. I think that it would be absurd to be complacent about trends in the Press. On the other hand, I do not think that we should be too depressed about what is happening. As my hon. Friends are aware, national newspapers are not a static institution. The market for information is continually changing, particularly with social conditions and educational standards. There are changing rôles for different media including the newspapers. Radio and television increasingly cover "hot" news, but the public demand for serious information is increasing.
This is reflected, as the facts and figures bear out, in the growth of the quality newspapers and in the increasing amount of more serious content in the populars. Newspaper publishers, of course, need to think ahead and decide what sort of readers they are attempting

to reach and what sort of material these readers will require. I do not think that anybody would doubt that over the years there has been a general increase in standards, and that the very adverse verdict delivered, I believe, by the 1949 Royal Commission on the Press is not one which a Commission today would record.
Having said that, let me also remind the House that there have been a number of inquiries previously into the Press. The last Royal Commission was, I believe, the Shawcross Commission, which reported in 1962. I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay in particular, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), all of whom have referred to this point, that a number of the proposals—riot all of them—that have been advanced today were discussed by that Royal Commission. While I would not try at the moment to recall all the arguments and conclusions reached, my hon. Friend will find that some very substantial difficulties were described in that Royal Commission's Report.
We accept that an adequate range of national newspapers is needed for the expression of different views. To maintain this, various devices have been suggested—we heard some this afternoon—for aiding ailing newspapers. In the past, Ministers have commented on proposals of this kind. I believe it was the former President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, Mr. Jay) who, in February, 1967, told the House that while the study of such remedies should be pursued, it was for the industry to set about sorting out its own economic difficulties in the light of modern conditions. I emphasise that the industry—and this applies also to television—can and really must carry the main burden of reform which is necessary to secure its own survival.
Having said that about the national newspapers, I wish to make a special point about the regional and local newspapers. They are a very important institution. They greatly enrich the quality of debate and of interest in the many communities that cover this land. Their independence and continued existence are a very great national asset. The greatest threat to the local and regional newspapers would be the very


ill-considered proposals, should they ever be adopted, for commercial radio which have been put forward from the Front Bench opposite on other occasions. That, I would think, would produce a dangerous situation.
I think that I have said enough about the Press to indicate that I do not quite share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who described, as it were, a crisis in the industry. This is a continuing problem but to put it in the terms he used does not accurately reflect the true state of affairs.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Mr. Arthur Davidson (Accrington) rose—

Mr. Shore: I must ask my hon. Friend to forgive me on this occasion. I am keeping an eye on the clock, and if I can give way to him later, I shall do so.
I turn now to the question of television. There has, as we know, recently been considerable concern about revenues, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications made a statement this week announcing changes in the levy which will benefit the companies which were under the greatest pressure to the extent of some £6 million. I believe that the urgent problems they were facing a short time ago will now be surmounted.
Inquiries have very often taken place into broadcasting, and it may well be desirable that there should be a public inquiry to consider broadcasting again—it might be a royal commission or an independent committee set up by my right hon. Friend. As the House knows, the franchises of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to broadcast—the B.B.C. Charter, the B.B.C. Licensing Agreement and the Television Act, 1964—all expire on 31st July, 1976. Before then, the Government will have to consider their policy for broadcasting beyond that date. It is true that, in the past, independent committees of inquiry have generally been set up to advise the Government for this purpose. On the last occasion it was the Pilkington Committee, which was set up in 1960 and reported in 1962.
The Government have made no decisions about what should be done after 1976, but, clearly, it will be necessary to consider what the future of broadcasting is to be after that date. The Government are as anxious as anyone that the

decisions to be made shall be the right ones, and perhaps a committee of inquiry or a commission would be the right way to help them reach those decisions. If so, such a commission would need to have enough time. It would need several years to do the work properly and for Government, Parliament and people to look at and consider the recommendations. It is too early to decide, but if an inquiry is set up, it will be set up in good time.
Some hon. Members argue that we should not wait until 1976. They claim that broadcasting has evoked so much interest, and even that there is a crisis of confidence—for example, over such things as the B.B.C.'s plans for sound radio and over the television companies—that there should be an inquiry now. I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney says about a "fire brigade" and the proposed use of a Select Committee. I think that he was right when he talked about the perhaps short-term problems which may arise, quite apart from the rather more searching forward inquiry of the sort we have had in the past. It is an interesting proposal.
I conclude on the subject of television by saying that I think it possible that there is a case here for some restricted form of inquiry into aspects of the effects of television on viewers, or perhaps many other aspects which may come to mind, but that this should be considered as something quite different from the longer-term-view-of-broadcasting kind of inquiries we had with the Pilkington Report and even before that.
I turn to meet head on the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay on the question of a major inquiry covering the whole range of communications industries—films, television, newspapers, the lot. This would be of enormous scope and it would be a big task. I see an interconnection in respect of advertising revenue, as my hon. Friend mentioned, as being a link between the Press and at least a part of broadcasting. I also see the relationship, as one must, between television and the film industry. I accept that there are these links.
We would, however, have to think very seriously indeed before we accepted that these links were, in themselves, so strong as to require such an enormously wide-ranging inquiry. I put aside the question


of the amount of time that it would take to carry through such an inquiry. I am thinking more in terms of the enormously difficult technical and specialised problems that exist in each medium.
My right hon. Friend spoke in the House only last week about recent and prospective developments; and these include, in television, the development of facilities for playback in the home of recorded material received on television sets and television connected by wire through switching exchanges to enable viewers to choose a programe from a vast selection, merely by the turn of a dial. Such developments might be more relevant to the future of broadcasting than many aspects of the Press or cinema. This is a fair point to make, and these matters must obviously receive careful consideration as we examine the suggestions that have been made.

Mr. Moonman: I must obviously speak a little more slowly so that my message can, without mistake, reach my hon. Friend. Equally, he must be clear about the message that he is giving. Is he telling people in the Labour Movement that his message is that the problems of newspapers and the communications industry can be left to market forces? If that is what he is saying, let him say that clearly and simply because this is a matter of grave concern; and nothing that he has said up to now alters the basis of the comments made by my right hon. Friend two years ago.

Mr. Shore: I am as concerned as any hon. Member to achieve the three aims I stated at the outset of my remarks, which are variety, independence and the quality of the media in this country.
My hon. Friend, in a somewhat accusatory way, asks certain questions. He should reflect carefully how far it is possible to achieve all three of those objectives at the same time. It is easy to say, "We will go for one or two", but one may do that at the cost of the third. I have not, as it were, slammed any doors on my hon. Friend. I have said that these are important matters on which we must reflect.
We recognise that there are serious problems in the communications industry. We believe that much can be done

by those directly concerned in the Press and television to cope with them. We certainly accept that at reasonable intervals, as has happened in the past, a searching inquiry into the Press and broadcasting is necessary. On broadcasting, we have stated that full-scale consideration of the future will be necessary before the Charters expire in 1976.
As for the Press, there is no lack of facts. Our view for many years has been that if the industry has suggestions to put, we will respond as sympathetically as we can. As to the suggestion of a Royal Commission on the communications industry, I am not satisfied so far that a case has been sufficiently made out for that to occur. While it would not be right completely to close the door on this proposal, I must make it clear that I have not been convinced, on the arguments I have heard today, of the peed for it.
We will consider carefully the case for more limited inquiries into particular problems. There is the Monopolies Commission, to be followed one assumes, if Parliament agrees, by the C.I.M. There are also a number of ad hoc committees, and one should not rule out the possibility of there being a Select Committee of this House.
While we cannot ignore the fact that economic and technical forces operate on the Press and broadcasting, as they do on other industries, the Government accept that there is a major national interest involved in preserving freedom and variety in the media of communications. If we are cautious in our approach, it is for one overwhelming reason, which is that there are inherent dangers in Government intervention. Given that the principal objective is to maintain variety, we must consider carefully the cost if this were to be obtained at the price of freedom.
I hope that I have answered the majority of the points raised by hon. Members. I have done my best, within the time available to me—

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, till Monday 6th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 23rd March.